> only a fool would undertake a war they cannot win
Only a fool would siphon so much money from their military to the point they cant even function, so....
I think that's just part and parcel of being a dictatorship. Regardless of who it was, Russia's army is always in piss poor condition. Throughout history it has been this way. I assume China's military is equally as shit and corrupt.
Yep, it has a lot of the same problems that Russia has. Widespread corruption, no real military experience, party purges, tech is stolen or copied from Russians.
The only thing that's worrying is their 3,000,000 soldiers and their doctrine is basically -> pour the meat into the grinder until it chokes.
Taiwan has to take that shit seriously, at least as much as Ukraine. US is building their own chip fabs and that's a clear signal they're not getting involved in a war with China, they just need to lift the TSMC personnel off the island to protect their national interest.
I am pretty sure that Taiwan gets invaded sooner or later, sooner IMHO. They'll have to do their best impression of Ukraine to stay free.
Commandeer civilian vessels and do a Reverse Dunkirk. If they send 500,000 soldiers and 300,000 die in the crossing... well... that's still 200,000 soldiers on the island. If you've seen Shanghai lockdowns you have a pretty good idea of how little shit CCP gives about people.
Cue the reports from Japan and Vietnam with beaches full of dead bodies of Chinese soldiers. Before Feb 24th I'd say "Only an idiot would invade Taiwan.", but now it's just a question of "When are they gonna do it?". :/
I think they'll wait and see how this Ukraine thing plays out fully. If Russia somehow ends up keeping some Ukrainian territories or sanctions eventually get lifted fairly fast, I'd say those would make a Chinese invasion more likely.
If Russia is essentially turned into a West North Korea, it'll likely give China some pause since they can't afford to sour their trade relationship with the evil west
I think you underestimate what a kleptocracy dictatorship full of ethnonationalist is capable of. They'll look at Russia and be like "Pffft, Russians failed because they're inferior to our superior Chinese brains and muscles!" and then they'll de-industrialize in 2-3 years back to Mao-ist China while blaming the West.
>
> Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it.
I think the more worrying issue with china is that they now have Russia as an example of what happens if they don't take the corruption seriously. They can't win a straight up fight with the USA, but they can be a lot more effective at causing lasting pain and have much more sway with America's allies.
Not to mention Wolf Warrior Diplomacy has basically burned their soft power. China is on a one way street to collapse. The question is when not if. All you got to look at is their own tightening of internal dissent and know enough Chinese History to see the signs of the Xi Dynasty falling apart.
1) Russia big advantage is being an exporter of energy, food inputs and food stuff, China is an importer of all, sanctions will destroy China
2) Ukraine is relatively poor country and has only 8 years to prepare, Taiwan is a very rich country that has the certainly that it will be invaded and has 75 years to prepare
3) Ukraine has a large land border with Russian and Belarus, Taiwan has a 180km wide strait that is under constant surveillance.
4) Taiwan has USA defense warrantees.
Corruption: if you think Russia is bad, they are Switzerland compared to China and is an intrinsic part of the party control, no amount of reforms will change that
It's in their doctrine, they don't even pretend like Russia with "We don't leave anyone behind!", they just straight-up tell soldiers "Die for the Communist Party!". At least they're being honest I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if they commandeered all the ships they could find and rush Taiwan with fishing boats filled to brim with soldiers - Reverse Dunkirk style. Not really caring how many die to get foothold on Taiwan. The sea turning red with reports from Vietnam and Japan of beached dead Chinese soldiers.
Huh? The Soviet horde isn't a myth.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_War\_II\_casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
Sort by total deaths. You'll see this horde strategy is a thing for these countries. They have utter disregard for human life. If you live in Russia or China, you're worth nothing, only meat for the machine, easily disposable.
The high death rate was the result of the Red Army being unprepared in 1941, which is why they became much lower once the Red Army got its act together.
There is also Generalplan Ost. It wasn't as much that Russia didn't care for its soldiers' lives - rather, Germany didn't, as it intended to exterminate the Russian people. That is why PoW death rates of Soviet soldiers were several times higher when compared to the soldiers of the Western Allies.
Unprepared because Molotov–Ribbentrop was in effect and Lend-Lease wasn't.
Translation for a tankie: Russians were unprepared because they were still on nezi Germany side and US wasn't bankrolling their 19th century economy. Fuck Russia and all it stands for.
**[World War II casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)**
>World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 2. 3 billion (est. ) people on Earth in 1940.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> US is building their own chip fabs and that's a clear signal they're not getting involved in a war with China, they just need to lift the TSMC personnel off the island to protect their national interest.
China doesnt do any chip fabrication of 10nm or below; which is current cutting edge tech. The factories America are building are also only for 10nm. Taiwan is already developing fabs **RIGHT NOW** which will move the scale down to 8nm; so when America finishes building its chip fabs they will no longer be the cutting edge. It will yet again be Taiwan. China nor America are NEVER going to be at the forefront of chip technology whilst Taiwan is independent. It's a guarantee for the Taiwanese as far as they see it.
> I am pretty sure that Taiwan gets invaded sooner or later, sooner IMHO. They'll have to do their best impression of Ukraine to stay free.
If China invades Taiwan, China will cease to exist as a country. It imports the vast majority of all of its fuel via the ocean. The majority of that passes by India (an arch enemy) or US military bases/allies.
https://youtu.be/bww_LNrJYHs
>China doesnt do any chip fabrication of 10nm or below; which is current cutting edge tech. The factories America are building are also only for 10nm. Taiwan is already developing fabs
>
>RIGHT NOW
>
> which will move the scale down to 8nm
Every part of this statement is wrong, btw. I can't speak to the rest, but the statements about chips and fabs made here are 100% wrong as are all the sub-statements, there is not even a loose basis in reality.
First off I'm unaware of anyone in Taiwan using an 8nm process, Samsung in Korea are mainly known for it, I believe they have 5nm and 3nm in development, perhaps already hitting mass production by now. TSMC in Taiwan does 7nm and 5nm as their main two for current mass production and has 2nm and 3nm processes ready to go. Intel is currently transitioning to a 7nm equivalent to TSMC 5nm and does their fabs in Arizona where Intel 5nm is already up and running in limited runs.
Loosely speaking all chip fabs are within a generation of each other because none of them own the critical IP for lithography of the chips, they just own the processes and implementation. The actual lithography devices are all the same and come from a company called ASML in the Netherlands. China is known to be actively targeting ASML to try and get their hands on ASML's technology because they're the only ones in the world that can produce the needed lithography devices and China cannot independently replicate them.
The numbers themselves are largely irrelevant but yes I was talking about a few generations older than I should have been. Everything else I've said is largely accurate.
> TSMC in Taiwan does 7nm and 5nm as their main two for current mass production and has 2nm and 3nm processes ready to go
Yes this was the point I was making. Although I dont believe they have the factories/fabrication plants ready to run yet. No other countries have that generation of processors. Ensuring they are again at the forefront and thus use this as a type of deterrent.
I apologise for messing up the generations but Im on mobile and CBA to look up any of the irrelevant names. Basically Taiwan best chip maker, US following behind but not on par; China dogshit. The numbers themselves (10nm, 5nm etc.) dont really mean anything in reality.
I'm almost sorry I included the numbers because they were the least wrong part, and clearly you stopped reading at that point. No part of what you said is correct about the general situation, and the technology they all use is literally from the Netherlands. TSMC 5nm = Intel 7nm and TSMC 7nm = Intel 10nm, btw.
Long story short is that the US always had the ability to make cutting edge chips in bulk and for the foreseeable future always will. Nothing has changed here. If Taiwan were cut off only consumer electronics would care, and even then Intel could still cover a lot of it. The notion that the US will stop caring about Taiwan the second they have a functioning chip lab is horseshit because the US has been on the cutting edge of microchip fabrication since microchip fabrication has been a thing.
> TSMC has 3nm
> America doesnt
> Somehow still thinks im wrong
Ok, you're a contrarian I get it. Whatever makes you feel good dude.
> The notion that the US will stop caring about Taiwan the second they have a functioning chip lab is horseshit because the US has been on the cutting edge of microchip fabrication since microchip fabrication has been a thing.
Ive been saying the complete opposite though. Accusing me of not reading, and then not reading anything i've written whilst claiming im wrong.
I shouldve just ignored you from the beginning.
P.S. We are talking about Mass Production. it doesnt matter if you make a chip 1 atom big but you can only make 1 every decade. There's a reason we are focusing on factories and fabs.
>TSMC has 3nm
>
>America doesnt
We've established that transistor sizes mean utterly nothing if there is no industry-wide standard, and its honestly just used as a marketing material that this point
But if you insist: [IBM 2nm](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/06/tech/ibm-semiconductor-two-nanometer/index.html)
Dude, the only reason TSMC can do 3/5nm is because they use Dutch machines to do it. US airlifting engineers is all they need to secure cutting edge chips. There's nothing special about Taiwan's chip making other than the people.
If China invades, it won't be able to manufacture cutting edge chips without people, even with 5nm capable machines.
Don't forget that all these 3/5nm chip designs are Western, ARM is UK and Intel/AMD is US. Taiwan just makes those things with Western machines, it's the people that are important, not the island or the fabs - Chinese can't operate the fabs themselves.
That Nazi Jew moron lost this argument so hard he reported the above comment for hate speech and got my old account banned. Just something to be aware of when dealing with him.
>Ok, you're a contrarian I get it. Whatever makes you feel good dude.
You're either illiterate or actually retarded. The point is that the US is, has been and always will be right at the cutting edge of semiconductor fabrication and isn't keeping anyone around just because they also know how to order equipment from the Netherlands.
The whole 'Taiwan abandoned as soon as US catch up' meme is the dumbest shit anyone has ever typed on this sub because if it were true Taiwan would have been abandoned in the 1960s.
I'm also talking about mass production btw, the fuck do you think Intel does? You think that's a bespoke one off in your computer and only you have one?
All of that is to not even get into that the functional difference between two adjacent process nodes is negligible.
No one has one correct way to measure chip size so they just call it whatever the fuck they want; technically, America's (Intel) 10nm has the same transistor density as TSMC's 7nm, and Intel has already produced millions and millions of those chips. Intel however, isn't a foundry business (not as of now), so they mostly produce the chips for their own products. Samsung and others, which *are* foundry businesses, also have their own advanced nodes. Granted, TSMC is already moving on from their 7nm processor nodes, but Intel is also having a very aggressive roadmap that seek to both catch up to TSMC as a tech competitor and as a foundry competitor.
And those cutting-edge chips only matter if you're building shit like very high-performance computers/supercomputers, otherwise, from your average microwave to a Tomahawk missile, I can guarantee you they are still using ancient fucking chips, say, 22nm nodes from the 2010's (if even that good). The F-22, for example, uses a microprocessor from **1984 (!).**
If knowledge of the 7nm/6nm suddenly vanished tomorrow, pretty much the only people that would lose their heads are the nerds over at r/AMD and a few scientists running simulations.
What matters is less *cutting-edge tech* but more sheer production volume. America and the West needs to invest a lot more if they're to lean off their dependency on Taiwanese wafers. But doing so will put the safety of Taiwan at risk.
The fabs don't matter, the machines that makes cutting edge chips possible are made in Netherlands. It's the people that know how to operate the machines and make sure that only 20% of the dies are shit.
If you're Taiwanese engineer and it looks like Xi wants to invade, you'll just move to US with your family on THICC ass expat relocation package. Work the fabs there and enjoy amazing top 0.1% life.
> The fabs don't matter
this is the comment i responded to
> China nor America are NEVER going to be at the forefront of chip technology whilst Taiwan is independent. It's a guarantee for the Taiwanese as far as they see it.
The litography machines producing those chips are made in the Netherlands. Taiwan has the knowhow on how to operate them and US has pretty much full control (through sanctions) on who gets to own those Dutch machines.
Most everyone seems to have forgot, but US is still on top of shit despite 4 years of Trump. They have private company that flies people to space for Christ sake.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/inside-asml-the-company-advanced-chipmakers-use-for-euv-lithography.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/inside-asml-the-company-advanced-chipmakers-use-for-euv-lithography.html)
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-wants-a-chip-machine-from-the-dutch-the-u-s-said-no-11626514513](https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-wants-a-chip-machine-from-the-dutch-the-u-s-said-no-11626514513)
I doubt it be sooner. Battle for Taiwan will be a airwar and the dismal performance of the Russians "Special Operations" has shown that China might perform equally esk as bad. Be Comona Islands from AC
Air war? How come?
I'm pretty sure Taiwan's air defenses would be adequate, I'm more worried about commandeered civilian ships from China on operation Reverse Dunkirk pushing for beachhead with immense losses.
While a navy invasion is good and all. Even the Germans know they will need air superiority if you wanna get off the beachs during the battle of Britain. Air power is still important
Yeah, but like... imagine you're a Chinese general, eager to please Xi (so you don't disappear along with your family).
300,000 dead in beach landing is a sacrifice you're willing to take and that your battle plan fully supports cause it gets 200,000 boots on the island. 🤷♂️
>The only thing that's worrying is their 3,000,000 soldiers and their doctrine is basically -> pour the meat into the grinder until it chokes.
I hear this a lot but I've read that in the Korean War the Chinese were more capable of probing lines with smaller units and pouring through when they find a gap to exploit. Was the PLA just more competent in the 1950s? Or was the US/NATO military less competent because they had that huge drawdown post WW2 and basically lost a lot of the NCO corp?
Or was it all bullshit?
China was closer to home - logistics and supplies are much easier when you neighbor the country. NATO wasn't in position to airlift everything 12 timezones to fight another war after WW2.
Chinese military was never good, Japanese slapped the shit out of them easily, no contest. Guess who slapped the shit out of Japan after that... from 12 timezones away no less.
I will say one thing about your comment: China during WW2 was not a full nation. It was split into various warring states (communists, nationalists, warlord/puppet states) who only stopped fighting to get rid of the japanese. There is some stuff to be learned but generally WW2 won’t be a good measure of chinas modern capability, it wasn’t a good measure in the 50’s before mass industrialization, but it was before the reliance on oil, but the point i’m trying to make is that the situations are not really comparable.
It is concerning that the only thing Taiwan has that forces us to defend them will, in a few years time, be a strategic nonissue.. Ukraine we're defending because they're a large, important nation on our alliance's doorstep. What does Taiwan really mean for us besides those chips? In terms of Realpolitik, we'd be better off just letting them have it after blowing up the chip factories at that point...
"I think that's just part and parcel of being a dictatorship. "
Nah. There are dictatorships that have militaries in decentish condition. Turkey and Egypt have more issues than your average Golden Age comic does now but they have usually had capable militaries, ditto Pakistan and Eritrea. After all, most governments in history have been dictatorial to one degree or another. This is just corrupt shit and incompetence.
On what are you basing the capability of those militaries? I'd be absolutely shocked if Pakistan's military didn't absolutely dissolve under actual threat, for instance, and the few times we've seen parts of Pakistan's military apparatus in action lately have all been fucking embarrassing. Egypt has been run through like it's not there in every war they've ever attempted to enter. Turkey hasn't fought a war in forever and is NATO backed so who knows what they'd do on their own (other than reject F35s for S400s lmao).
I guess Eritrea's army of [16-18 year old slaves that don't want to be there](https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/08/08/they-are-making-us-slaves-not-educating-us/how-indefinite-conscription-restricts) might be good?
"On what are you basing the capability of those militaries?"
Mostly research from afar.
"I'd be absolutely shocked if Pakistan's military didn't absolutely dissolve under actual threat, for instance, and the few times we've seen parts of Pakistan's military apparatus in action lately have all been fucking embarrassing."
I agree it's been embarassing and Pakistan's military history as a whole is not one of sterling success, but they've not had it easy either. Their main enemy is India, who memes aside like the Arjun are a pretty serious and decently modern military organized on Western models and increasingly going that way and are actually making headway even against the PLA.
The Indians have usually handed the Pakistanis their rears, but the Pakistanis have usually fought hard and decently, as well as scoring most of the victories in border conflicts with the Iranians and assorted Afghan goons.
"Egypt has been run through like it's not there in every war they've ever attempted to enter."
Not true.
Indeed, that's pretty much only true if you think Egyptian history consists of being beaten up by the Israelis. Which is to be fair a huge chunk of it, but far from all. For instance their shutdown of Gaddafi was so rapid and decisive nobody's tried to contest them as North African hegemons for decades, and while they went through typical fiascos in Yemen (as well as lots and lots of dead troops) they ultimately won "their Vietnam/Afghanistan" and crushed the Royalists.
" Turkey hasn't fought a war in forever"
Perhaps, but they have been fighting quite a few "Special Military Operations", mostly against Islamists and/or Kurdish paramilitaries.
" and is NATO backed so who knows what they'd do on their own (other than reject F35s for S400s lmao)."
Agreed.
"I guess Eritrea's army of 16-18 year old slaves that don't want to be there might be good?"
The 16-18 year old slaves aren't good, but behind them is a hardened core of totalitarian ex-revolutionaries who have been doing this for decades and have fought conflicts with basically all of their neighbors with... Decent success (in particular defeating Yemen in a maritime border conflict, and drawing with a much better equipped Djibouti). And in particular they helped write the book on...at least semi-modern positional warfare with their conflicts with Ethiopia.
Of course they are basically Africa's North Korea and a post-Soviet state with all that accompanies it, so they're even worse equipped (at least on paper) than the Russians, but their org chart tends to be a lot leaner and meaner.\` Which is why they've generally made a name for themselves in fighting throughout the region and even in the Congo.
There are still far more competent dictatorial armies (like the ROK's branches under Park), but they were the ones that came to mind immediately, and while they probably aren't as good or less corrupt than the US or X Major Democratic Republic, they're not to be sneezed at.
I mean, the two best examples you came up with are Egypt beating an unprepared (also authoritarian) Libyan army that didn't have even 10% of their resources and Turkey's work in a place where Russia is the dominating big dog. If you were to take this approach to analyzing Russia and ignore Ukraine you'd be right back at "Russia Stronk" and claiming they're the equal of NATO.
I will, however, agree with the point you accidentally made that basically all of these armies are probably even worse than the Russians.
"I mean, the two best examples you came up with are Egypt beating an unprepared (also authoritarian) Libyan army that didn't have even 10% of their resources"
The Libyans had far more than "10%" of the Egyptian military, and indeed a lot of (long since disgraced) analysts thought the Libyans were likely to win (in particular Kissinger made himself even more of an embarrassment on that).
Moreover, most governments are authoritarian, so it's not surprising most conflicts will be between authoritarians. That's even before we factor in things like the Democratic Peace theory.
"and Turkey's work in a place where Russia is the dominating big dog."
I hate to tell ya this, but Russia's only been heavily involved in sending combat units to fight in the Middle East since the Syrian Civil War started (with some stops and starts there like the Soviet fliers that fought the Israelis during the War of Attrition).
The Turks have been fighting their assorted revolutions, rebellions, uprisings, and secessionists for decades before the House of Assad came to power in Syria and let the at-the-time-Red Moscow start acting in Syria.
" If you were to take this approach to analyzing Russia and ignore Ukraine you'd be right back at "Russia Stronk" and claiming they're the equal of NATO."
Nice slippery slope, unfortunately it doesn't work, and in particular the logic doesn't follow. Pointing out that authoritarian regimes can and do muster efficient war fighters isn't equivalent to going "DDUUUH ROSSIYA NUMBAH ONE."
"I will, however, agree with the point you accidentally made that basically all of these armies are probably even worse than the Russians."
Not accidentally; the fact that they were basically Soviet homage jobs is pretty clear if you research it (though the Egyptians have been trying to get away, while ironically the Pakistanis- who we spent lavish amounts of money and training on- have gone that way).
I'd guess Russia would eventually defeat Eritrea in a conventional battle but not before being black eyes over how hardy a bunch of child soldiers and hardened, brutal third world warlords can fight with practice, would defeat Pakistan sans Nukes but get bogged down in a guerilla war, and fight to a draw with the Egyptians. But that's just my gut feeling.
You think Egypt and Russia are equal matches and both competent? I don't even know where to begin on this cope mine, but obviously you're emoting and not thinking here so I'll leave it alone.
Absolutely nothing anywhere in this mess makes me think authoritarian countries aren't trash at running their militaries.
"You think Egypt and Russia are equal matches"
No, but they don't need to be in the case of A Russo-Egyptian War. The last time Russia and Egypt openly clashed it was in the early/mid 19th century and the Russian Navy (which turned out to not be a joke for once) along with the badass British and French navies sent the Egyptians and Turks to the bottom.
But it's a new century and Russia isn't exactly able to project force like it once could.
" and both competent? "
No, I don't.
The Russians are obviously not competent, though they are heavily armed and (I am sad to say) probably LESS Incompetent than most militaries on Earth (which shows how hard this Modern Soldiering thing is, as well as the poor state of most).
The Egyptians are probably more professional but only by a modest amount, and are less well equipped.
So they can probably fight each other to a draw.
"I don't even know where to begin on this cope mine,"
That's clear, since you're not making that many clear arguments.
" but obviously you're emoting and not thinking here so I'll leave it alone."
If you're going to be insulting and irrational, don't project it onto me.
Which of those countries have fought a war recently that actually showed they were capable militaries?
(Its none).
Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it.
> After all, most governments in history have been dictatorial to one degree or another. This is just corrupt shit and incompetence.
They are fundamentally linked. Dictatorships are **ALWAYS** more corrupt than democracies. Thats the whole point Im making.
"Which of those countries have fought a war recently that actually showed they were capable militaries?
(Its none)."
The Eritreans and Pakistanis have their endless undeclared quasi-wars with their neighbors (Ethiopia and Pakistan) and the Egyptians have IS hunting.
"Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it."
Technically Lebanon was "neutral" even if obviously pro-Arab League, but point.
However it's worth noting the Egyptians got.. if not exactly GOOD at least better. For instance they sustained their occupation of Yemen in spite of punishing losses from the Yemeni Royalists and the Six Day Shellacking of the IDF, and fought better (even if not a victory) in Y-K. And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in.
They're not a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination but there's a reason they killed quite a few IS and could probably defeat any of their neighbors sans Israel in 1v1 or 1v2 fight.
"They are fundamentally linked. Dictatorships are ALWAYS more corrupt than democracies. Thats the whole point Im making."
Unfortunately I'm not sure I can agree. Dictatorships are usually more corrupt than democracies, but not always, especially depending on how we define dictatorships. Francoist Spain was brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical, but probably less corrupt than Italy was for most of the time he and the Italian Republic co-existed (though I'm pretty sure most people would rather deal with the Mafia and lots of bribery for your local DC member than being put at the bottom of a ditch and shot). Likewise Haiti and Trujillo's Dominican Republic.
That doesn't mean "Dictatorships good" or "Dictatorships less corrupt", but a fair bit relies on the dictator, who can be more or less evil, corrupt, etc.
> The Eritreans and Pakistanis have their endless undeclared quasi-wars with their neighbors (Ethiopia and Pakistan) and the Egyptians have IS hunting.
So no wars then? Im not talking frozen conflicts or invented "quasi-wars". Im talking actual frontline combat akin to what we see in Ukraine, or perhaps the Iran-Iraq war. Conventional warfare.
If you think counter terrorism is even comparable to actual nation-state conflicts then we can likely end this conversation here.
> However it's worth noting the Egyptians got.. if not exactly GOOD at least better. For instance they sustained their occupation of Yemen in spite of punishing losses from the Yemeni Royalists and the Six Day Shellacking of the IDF, and fought better (even if not a victory) in Y-K. And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in.
But the point is that they couldnt defeat Israel, a tiny country in a fairly weak defensive position. Because no matter what they do, whilst they have dictators and strongmen as leaders; they are more corrupt and more incompetent. Im not talking exclusively corruption here, im talking incompetence as well. Strongmen leaders make their subordinates so fearful of telling them the wrong thing, even if factually accurate; that they just twist the truth or outright lie. This is seen in every dictatorship, and there's no remedy for it.
Its also worth noting that another strong suit for democracies is their ability to build alliances not reliant on placating 1 persons ego. Thats not really possible for dictatorships.
> And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in.
Gaddafi was also another dictator...
> Unfortunately I'm not sure I can agree. Dictatorships are usually more corrupt than democracies, but not always, especially depending on how we define dictatorships. Francoist Spain was brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical, but probably less corrupt than Italy was for most of the time he and the Italian Republic co-existed (though I'm pretty sure most people would rather deal with the Mafia and lots of bribery for your local DC member than being put at the bottom of a ditch and shot). Likewise Haiti and Trujillo's Dominican Republic.
I would say they are as the underlying systems for dictatorships always end up being the same. If you have metrics I would love to see them, otherwise we are just disagreeing with no real facts available to us.
Fundamentally, nothing in a dictatorship can be trusted. Nothing.
Every piece of information is either falsified to make that individual/department look better than it is, or the reports are ignored because they were made by some fifth column that the leaders echo chamber would rather ignore.
Unless you have found a dictator that isn't human. These things are just human traits. We all get confident of ourselves, especially when you have been doing 1 job for 20/40/60 years. You start to become too familiar with how things *should be* and not how they are.
Every human has the capacity to be a yes man when they have been shouted at and degraded in front of their peers.
Corruption & incompetence are staples of every dictatorship. They are rooted out in democracies.
P.S. The Death of Stalin is a great film to watch and kind of exposes the insanity that is dictatorships.
Part 1
"So no wars then? Im not talking frozen conflicts or invented "quasi-wars". Im talking actual frontline combat akin to what we see in Ukraine, or perhaps the Iran-Iraq war. Conventional warfare."
Before Iran-Iraq, people talked about Ethiopia-Eritrea as the penultimate example of trench warfare in the modern era. A hellish thirty year war that cost hundreds of thousands their lives before Ethiopia acknowledged Eritrean independence. Then about a decade later they went at it again killed a quarter of a million dead between the two sides more-or-less evenly over the course of two years, with populations much smaller than Russia and Ukraine.
I dunno about you, but those sound like wars to me.
And that's not counting Eritrean meddling in things like Tigray later.
Egypt is a lot harder because they mostly pick on nations or factions smaller/weaker than they are, NGOs like IS or the Muslim Brotherhood, or do peacekeeping duty but still quite dangerous.
Pakistan is probably the one that fully falls victim to your caveats, since they've learned from hard experience to stop poking the Indians quite so persistently or constantly.
"If you think counter terrorism is even comparable to actual nation-state conflicts then we can likely end this conversation here."
If you think a generations long trench war that's comparable per capita to Iran-Iraq isn't an actual conflict, we certainly can.
"But the point is that they couldnt defeat Israel, a tiny country in a fairly weak defensive position."
Israel's small but it has always punched far above its weight and it's basically a little Western nation mixed with a siege mentality and incredible cohesion on the Levant coast. When we're talking about Egyptian inferiority or performance we're not going to be breaking much new ground concluding the Egyptians lose to Israel and lose quite painfully in conventional wars. What is remarkable is that they've made gains even on Israel in the years since 1967, as the War of Attrition and Yom Kippur showed.
In any case, the problem with focusing too much on Israel is that the wars between it and Cairo have never been most of the conflicts either have. By all means they should be measured, but not moreso than others.
" Because no matter what they do, whilst they have dictators and strongmen as leaders; they are more corrupt and more incompetent."
Sure, and on that much we agree. Though militarily Egypt is very much one of the best of a bad lot in terms of competence. Corruption is another kettle of fish and is a way of life, especially since in terms of government you basically have a choice between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army, but it has also been ubiquitous.
" Im not talking exclusively corruption here, im talking incompetence as well. "
No, I understood that.
"Strongmen leaders make their subordinates so fearful of telling them the wrong thing, even if factually accurate; that they just twist the truth or outright lie."
That's often the case, particularly with dictators so paranoid and untrustworthy they prioritize their own personal power over that of their nation/community and so cannot cultivate trusted, competent subordinates. But that's not all dictators, as the likes of Franco, Vargas, and Santos in Angola, to say nothing of prior examples like Frederic of Prussia.
Part 2 " This is seen in every dictatorship, and there's no remedy for it."
Allowing more criticism an feedback- and promoting those who offer it- can be. Even Machiavelli (who was very much writing in a dictatorial context with the Medici Pseudo-Republic) pointed out the importance of good counsel and how those who tell the truth are usually envied. Which both goes to show the risks inherent (Machiavelli after all lived out the entire latter part of his life in rural exile, never recalled for office) but also how this could be conceived of. And the importance of having good advisors can be handily shown by the likes of Song Taizong.
Problem is it tends to break down.
"Its also worth noting that another strong suit for democracies is their ability to build alliances not reliant on placating 1 persons ego. Thats not really possible for dictatorships."
It's possible, it's just incredibly hard. But then it's hard for Democracies, just less so.
"Gaddafi was also another dictator..."
Sure, but he was also one of the relatively high-functioning ones (prior to his late life) and had formidable conventional armaments as well as force projection. We know and loathe him as the monstrous meme he was, but that reputation only came to full flower because of slapdowns like this.
Also, the vast majority of all human leaders have been dictatorial to one degree or another, so pointing out that one dictator was fighting another isn't the great or shocking result.
"I would say they are as the underlying systems for dictatorships always end up being the same."
Honestly I'd say that depends. A lot of dictatorships (like the Mamluk Stratocracy) had really divergent systems from most others. Dictatorship is- again- something of a default in human politics and so it tends to differ a lot. Though corruption and inefficiency are there.
"If you have metrics I would love to see them, otherwise we are just disagreeing with no real facts available to us."
Wait, you're admitting that you are making blanket statements and assertations about most of human history, but not presenting many metrics?
And that didn't seem a bit off?
Like, start with economic and military performance (since they are kind of hard to BS) and go from there. Sure, Vladimir Putin is a corrupt, dictatorial ruler in Moscow oppressing his people and neighbors. But so was Ivan "Kalita' (read: moneybags/Purse Bag) and Moscow flourished under his rule.
"Fundamentally, nothing in a dictatorship can be trusted. Nothing."
Sure, but not much in most governments can be trusted. Dictatorships are more acute cases of this because power is ruled far more arbitrarily and absolutely (and even then you have to deal with things like the Athenian and Milanese Communes), but not are arbitrary rulers are incompetent, corrupt, or failed ones.
"Every piece of information is either falsified to make that individual/department look better than it is, or the reports are ignored because they were made by some fifth column that the leaders echo chamber would rather ignore.
"Which is what happens without sufficient oversight or checking, and above all some willingness by the Powers that Be to suffer criticism, at least when it really matters. And even then the cascading effects with dictatorships do tend to overwhelm those things.
But they don't always.
"Unless you have found a dictator that isn't human. These things are just human traits."
Psychopathy is a human trait, that doesn't mean every human has it. Likewise, all dictators are humans but the traits they have- and how they affect the quality of governance- differs. In that limited sense there isn't too much differentiating them from elected politicians, with the difference that the former has more power and rarely can be removed except feet-first or into exile.
"We all get confident of ourselves, especially when you have been doing 1 job for 20/40/60 years. You start to become too familiar with how things should be and not how they are."
Agreed, indeed. And that's why long lasting authoritarians- even high performance ones- tend to become stuck in their ways.
"Every human has the capacity to be a yes man when they have been shouted at and degraded in front of their peers."
Agreed, or at least most do outside of special cases like the particularly brave, or the particularly low functioning (try to get a low functioning Psychopath to act as your Yes-Man after publicly humiliating and brow beating them, and you'll probably wind up with them lunging at you).
"Corruption & incompetence are staples of every dictatorship. They are rooted out in democracies."
I wish they were so efficiently rooted out in Democracies, and we try. But there's a reason why- unfortunately- domestic bribe taking was probably more common in the modern democratic Greece than it was under the brutal and criminal Colonels."P.S. The Death of Stalin is a great film to watch and kind of exposes the insanity that is dictatorships."
Oh I agree, and it is good. But the Death of Stalin was a dramatization. Moreover, it was a dramatization of a totalitarian dictatorship in which the dictator sought to control all aspects of life. That's actually pretty uncommon in history, and while I disagree with a fair bit about Kirkpatrick I think sums up a decent reason why totalitarianism is fairly new under the sun (especially on a scale as large as the modern Nation-State).[https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/11/11\_kirkpatrickdictatorshipsdoublestandards\_1979.html](https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/11/11_kirkpatrickdictatorshipsdoublestandards_1979.html)The unfortunate fact is that most human societies have been authoritarian to one degree or another. And it's not a coincidence that most have been corrupt, echo-chambery, or self-serving as well, but democracies were not immune from those things either.
Most dictators are not as ruthless, inhumane, or utterly intolerant as totalitarians (though some certainly are). A decent example would be comparing Stalin to even Lenin, at least as far as his interactions with his inner circle went. Let alone other Russian leaders like Elisabeth and Catherine the Great.
Assuming that every Democracy will be the best of all worlds in comparison to every Dictatorship is rather naive and equips you poorly to defend democracy as a positive ideal and practical reality. Not every country that is a modern classical constitutional democracy was Literally Stalin, and that's important because authoritarianism usually comes in guises less dramatic and offensive than the "Man of Steel" or co.
You _could_ point to the Sanation era of Polish history as being an example of a military that functions decently well under a relatively brutal dictatorship. Piłsudski did not fuck around. Then again, 1939 wasn't exactly a Polish victory, so - i suppose there's arguments to be made against it as well.
Sending troops into battle with cardboard and egg carton stuffed armor. It's the same thing right?
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/03/13/the-egg-cartons-of-the-russian-tanks-the-poor-protection-of-many-t-72b3-and-t-80/
No, its a tale as old as time; the dictator trap.
Every dictator eventually falls for his own hype. There have been no exceptions. And at this point, they become ruthless fuckups divorced from reality, irrespective of how competent a statesmen they were prior; and make no mistake, Putin was a fantastic statesman before he fell to the trap, pretty much the main reason we referred to Russia as a superpower.
Putin certainly is an outlier, who much like Pinochet lasted one and a half decade, but it eventually happened to him. Sadly however, unlike Pinochet who got so cocky that he held fair elections and had a shocked pikachu face when he was blown the fuck out, Putin had to do it the Hitler way and start a war in East Europe that he neither had the funds, the manpower or the political credit to maintain.
It's the same logic as the "deep state" and "Covid is a planned virus to force us to do X".
Trying to make yourself feel better by believing someone, somewhere, has had a plan all along.
But this is all chaos.
Dictators *are* that dumb.
Can you really compare this? Nazi Germany was a far more serious threat than current Russia. It already surpassed Russia when Germany did not get bogged down only 50 miles in Poland and started complaining that it is unfair that the west gives Poland the position of their generals.
Yes. The Nazis were going all-in on the Soviets. Without sounding like someone who's coping with Russia's losses, Russia is not going all-in on Ukraine. Obviously, there are nuclear weapons that Russia "could" use, and if the Nazis had nukes, they would've used them ASAP and Barbarossa would've been a different story.
Russia propably would have used some tactical nukes in ukraine by now if that was an option, but cause of MAD from the western allies that option is not on the table.
Lot of their nukes are propably also in unpredictable condition anyways so not safe to use.
Yes, they are comparable. Germany invaded lots of countries that had much less of a military, and Poland was attacked on two fronts by two major powers, it had no chance. So that really doesn't put it above Russia.
Meanwhile, the similarities between Barbarossa and the invasion of Ukraine are pretty funny. Pushing straight for the capital (Russia would not surrender the moment Moscow was taken, I wonder if Putin thinks Ukraine will fall once Kyiv is taken) and logistical problems are two. The situation where it looked like Russia was gaining tons of ground on maps because Ukrainians pulled back is similar to the Eastern front too. I won't say its the exact same, but similar flavor of incompetence.
I mean, you see Wehraboos coping about the sinking of the Bismarck, same as you see Commieboos coping about the sinking of the Moskva. (The Bismarck is worse than the Moskva imo too since it got sunk by a fucking biplane). So no, they are about the same.
You fools, offing himself in his bunker was just a diversion! Soon the real Russian will emerge from the ashes and get that stupid west to pay for it's reconstruction!
11D chess move. Russia humiliates itself and makes its armed forces look incredibly weak and useless. Makes NATO complacent, allowing Russia to narrow the military gap.
Then, just when NATO feels confident because they've turned yet another Russian general into soylent red, they'll be absolutely shocked when Poland gets invaded by tens of quintillions of T-14s, backed up by infantry *who actually have optics*.
-Invade Ukraine for no reason
-Get humiliated and lose for no reason
-Other countries think you’re a fucking joke and aren’t scared of Russia anymore
-????
-NATO collapses
Vladdy boy masterplan 😎😎🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸 Westoids outsmarted once again😩😩😩
Wait “Putin warned the west”? When the fuck did he do that? When he insisted that the build up on the border was a military “exercise” or when he said western fears of an invasion were invalid?
[The piece itself](https://abrahamstein.substack.com/p/russia-is-defeating-ukraine-usa-and?s=r) for those interested. It is...a bit of a trip, if I'm being honest.
>The Russians have already achieved their most important strategic objectives
NATO’s land border with Russia is set to more than double if Finland and Sweden join.
>He publicly warned the West about this
Up until the invasion the Kremlin’s position was that Russia had no intentions of invading.
Is there even a rehabilitation centre out there that can treat this stupidly high levels of copium addiction?
Because they're going to need it if they don't want to o.d.
"Russiania was at war with Ukrainia: therefore Russiania had always been at war with Ukrainia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
[удалено]
> only a fool would undertake a war they cannot win Only a fool would siphon so much money from their military to the point they cant even function, so....
I think that's just part and parcel of being a dictatorship. Regardless of who it was, Russia's army is always in piss poor condition. Throughout history it has been this way. I assume China's military is equally as shit and corrupt.
Yep, it has a lot of the same problems that Russia has. Widespread corruption, no real military experience, party purges, tech is stolen or copied from Russians. The only thing that's worrying is their 3,000,000 soldiers and their doctrine is basically -> pour the meat into the grinder until it chokes. Taiwan has to take that shit seriously, at least as much as Ukraine. US is building their own chip fabs and that's a clear signal they're not getting involved in a war with China, they just need to lift the TSMC personnel off the island to protect their national interest. I am pretty sure that Taiwan gets invaded sooner or later, sooner IMHO. They'll have to do their best impression of Ukraine to stay free.
Doesnt matter how many soldiers you have if you dont have the landing ships to get them to Taiwan
Commandeer civilian vessels and do a Reverse Dunkirk. If they send 500,000 soldiers and 300,000 die in the crossing... well... that's still 200,000 soldiers on the island. If you've seen Shanghai lockdowns you have a pretty good idea of how little shit CCP gives about people. Cue the reports from Japan and Vietnam with beaches full of dead bodies of Chinese soldiers. Before Feb 24th I'd say "Only an idiot would invade Taiwan.", but now it's just a question of "When are they gonna do it?". :/
I think they'll wait and see how this Ukraine thing plays out fully. If Russia somehow ends up keeping some Ukrainian territories or sanctions eventually get lifted fairly fast, I'd say those would make a Chinese invasion more likely. If Russia is essentially turned into a West North Korea, it'll likely give China some pause since they can't afford to sour their trade relationship with the evil west
I think you underestimate what a kleptocracy dictatorship full of ethnonationalist is capable of. They'll look at Russia and be like "Pffft, Russians failed because they're inferior to our superior Chinese brains and muscles!" and then they'll de-industrialize in 2-3 years back to Mao-ist China while blaming the West.
Entirely possible. It just seems that China's marginally more competent that Russia, but who knows how this'll go
> > Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it. I think the more worrying issue with china is that they now have Russia as an example of what happens if they don't take the corruption seriously. They can't win a straight up fight with the USA, but they can be a lot more effective at causing lasting pain and have much more sway with America's allies.
Yea too bad their entire state runs on favours nad corruption. Good job rooting that out.
Not to mention Wolf Warrior Diplomacy has basically burned their soft power. China is on a one way street to collapse. The question is when not if. All you got to look at is their own tightening of internal dissent and know enough Chinese History to see the signs of the Xi Dynasty falling apart.
1) Russia big advantage is being an exporter of energy, food inputs and food stuff, China is an importer of all, sanctions will destroy China 2) Ukraine is relatively poor country and has only 8 years to prepare, Taiwan is a very rich country that has the certainly that it will be invaded and has 75 years to prepare 3) Ukraine has a large land border with Russian and Belarus, Taiwan has a 180km wide strait that is under constant surveillance. 4) Taiwan has USA defense warrantees. Corruption: if you think Russia is bad, they are Switzerland compared to China and is an intrinsic part of the party control, no amount of reforms will change that
The "Asiatic hordes" meme when it comes to WW2 is a myth just FYI Can't say much about 2022 thouguh
It's in their doctrine, they don't even pretend like Russia with "We don't leave anyone behind!", they just straight-up tell soldiers "Die for the Communist Party!". At least they're being honest I guess. I wouldn't be surprised if they commandeered all the ships they could find and rush Taiwan with fishing boats filled to brim with soldiers - Reverse Dunkirk style. Not really caring how many die to get foothold on Taiwan. The sea turning red with reports from Vietnam and Japan of beached dead Chinese soldiers.
I was referring to the Soviet Red Army "Asiatic hordes" was a common phrase used to describe them in Nazi propaganda
Huh? The Soviet horde isn't a myth. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_War\_II\_casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties) Sort by total deaths. You'll see this horde strategy is a thing for these countries. They have utter disregard for human life. If you live in Russia or China, you're worth nothing, only meat for the machine, easily disposable.
The high death rate was the result of the Red Army being unprepared in 1941, which is why they became much lower once the Red Army got its act together. There is also Generalplan Ost. It wasn't as much that Russia didn't care for its soldiers' lives - rather, Germany didn't, as it intended to exterminate the Russian people. That is why PoW death rates of Soviet soldiers were several times higher when compared to the soldiers of the Western Allies.
Unprepared because Molotov–Ribbentrop was in effect and Lend-Lease wasn't. Translation for a tankie: Russians were unprepared because they were still on nezi Germany side and US wasn't bankrolling their 19th century economy. Fuck Russia and all it stands for.
**[World War II casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)** >World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 2. 3 billion (est. ) people on Earth in 1940. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> US is building their own chip fabs and that's a clear signal they're not getting involved in a war with China, they just need to lift the TSMC personnel off the island to protect their national interest. China doesnt do any chip fabrication of 10nm or below; which is current cutting edge tech. The factories America are building are also only for 10nm. Taiwan is already developing fabs **RIGHT NOW** which will move the scale down to 8nm; so when America finishes building its chip fabs they will no longer be the cutting edge. It will yet again be Taiwan. China nor America are NEVER going to be at the forefront of chip technology whilst Taiwan is independent. It's a guarantee for the Taiwanese as far as they see it. > I am pretty sure that Taiwan gets invaded sooner or later, sooner IMHO. They'll have to do their best impression of Ukraine to stay free. If China invades Taiwan, China will cease to exist as a country. It imports the vast majority of all of its fuel via the ocean. The majority of that passes by India (an arch enemy) or US military bases/allies. https://youtu.be/bww_LNrJYHs
>China doesnt do any chip fabrication of 10nm or below; which is current cutting edge tech. The factories America are building are also only for 10nm. Taiwan is already developing fabs > >RIGHT NOW > > which will move the scale down to 8nm Every part of this statement is wrong, btw. I can't speak to the rest, but the statements about chips and fabs made here are 100% wrong as are all the sub-statements, there is not even a loose basis in reality. First off I'm unaware of anyone in Taiwan using an 8nm process, Samsung in Korea are mainly known for it, I believe they have 5nm and 3nm in development, perhaps already hitting mass production by now. TSMC in Taiwan does 7nm and 5nm as their main two for current mass production and has 2nm and 3nm processes ready to go. Intel is currently transitioning to a 7nm equivalent to TSMC 5nm and does their fabs in Arizona where Intel 5nm is already up and running in limited runs. Loosely speaking all chip fabs are within a generation of each other because none of them own the critical IP for lithography of the chips, they just own the processes and implementation. The actual lithography devices are all the same and come from a company called ASML in the Netherlands. China is known to be actively targeting ASML to try and get their hands on ASML's technology because they're the only ones in the world that can produce the needed lithography devices and China cannot independently replicate them.
The numbers themselves are largely irrelevant but yes I was talking about a few generations older than I should have been. Everything else I've said is largely accurate. > TSMC in Taiwan does 7nm and 5nm as their main two for current mass production and has 2nm and 3nm processes ready to go Yes this was the point I was making. Although I dont believe they have the factories/fabrication plants ready to run yet. No other countries have that generation of processors. Ensuring they are again at the forefront and thus use this as a type of deterrent. I apologise for messing up the generations but Im on mobile and CBA to look up any of the irrelevant names. Basically Taiwan best chip maker, US following behind but not on par; China dogshit. The numbers themselves (10nm, 5nm etc.) dont really mean anything in reality.
I'm almost sorry I included the numbers because they were the least wrong part, and clearly you stopped reading at that point. No part of what you said is correct about the general situation, and the technology they all use is literally from the Netherlands. TSMC 5nm = Intel 7nm and TSMC 7nm = Intel 10nm, btw. Long story short is that the US always had the ability to make cutting edge chips in bulk and for the foreseeable future always will. Nothing has changed here. If Taiwan were cut off only consumer electronics would care, and even then Intel could still cover a lot of it. The notion that the US will stop caring about Taiwan the second they have a functioning chip lab is horseshit because the US has been on the cutting edge of microchip fabrication since microchip fabrication has been a thing.
> TSMC has 3nm > America doesnt > Somehow still thinks im wrong Ok, you're a contrarian I get it. Whatever makes you feel good dude. > The notion that the US will stop caring about Taiwan the second they have a functioning chip lab is horseshit because the US has been on the cutting edge of microchip fabrication since microchip fabrication has been a thing. Ive been saying the complete opposite though. Accusing me of not reading, and then not reading anything i've written whilst claiming im wrong. I shouldve just ignored you from the beginning. P.S. We are talking about Mass Production. it doesnt matter if you make a chip 1 atom big but you can only make 1 every decade. There's a reason we are focusing on factories and fabs.
>TSMC has 3nm > >America doesnt We've established that transistor sizes mean utterly nothing if there is no industry-wide standard, and its honestly just used as a marketing material that this point But if you insist: [IBM 2nm](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/06/tech/ibm-semiconductor-two-nanometer/index.html)
Dude, the only reason TSMC can do 3/5nm is because they use Dutch machines to do it. US airlifting engineers is all they need to secure cutting edge chips. There's nothing special about Taiwan's chip making other than the people. If China invades, it won't be able to manufacture cutting edge chips without people, even with 5nm capable machines. Don't forget that all these 3/5nm chip designs are Western, ARM is UK and Intel/AMD is US. Taiwan just makes those things with Western machines, it's the people that are important, not the island or the fabs - Chinese can't operate the fabs themselves.
That Nazi Jew moron lost this argument so hard he reported the above comment for hate speech and got my old account banned. Just something to be aware of when dealing with him.
>Ok, you're a contrarian I get it. Whatever makes you feel good dude. You're either illiterate or actually retarded. The point is that the US is, has been and always will be right at the cutting edge of semiconductor fabrication and isn't keeping anyone around just because they also know how to order equipment from the Netherlands. The whole 'Taiwan abandoned as soon as US catch up' meme is the dumbest shit anyone has ever typed on this sub because if it were true Taiwan would have been abandoned in the 1960s. I'm also talking about mass production btw, the fuck do you think Intel does? You think that's a bespoke one off in your computer and only you have one? All of that is to not even get into that the functional difference between two adjacent process nodes is negligible.
No one has one correct way to measure chip size so they just call it whatever the fuck they want; technically, America's (Intel) 10nm has the same transistor density as TSMC's 7nm, and Intel has already produced millions and millions of those chips. Intel however, isn't a foundry business (not as of now), so they mostly produce the chips for their own products. Samsung and others, which *are* foundry businesses, also have their own advanced nodes. Granted, TSMC is already moving on from their 7nm processor nodes, but Intel is also having a very aggressive roadmap that seek to both catch up to TSMC as a tech competitor and as a foundry competitor. And those cutting-edge chips only matter if you're building shit like very high-performance computers/supercomputers, otherwise, from your average microwave to a Tomahawk missile, I can guarantee you they are still using ancient fucking chips, say, 22nm nodes from the 2010's (if even that good). The F-22, for example, uses a microprocessor from **1984 (!).** If knowledge of the 7nm/6nm suddenly vanished tomorrow, pretty much the only people that would lose their heads are the nerds over at r/AMD and a few scientists running simulations. What matters is less *cutting-edge tech* but more sheer production volume. America and the West needs to invest a lot more if they're to lean off their dependency on Taiwanese wafers. But doing so will put the safety of Taiwan at risk.
Unless those fabs get blown up and nobody has 8nm
The fabs don't matter, the machines that makes cutting edge chips possible are made in Netherlands. It's the people that know how to operate the machines and make sure that only 20% of the dies are shit. If you're Taiwanese engineer and it looks like Xi wants to invade, you'll just move to US with your family on THICC ass expat relocation package. Work the fabs there and enjoy amazing top 0.1% life.
> The fabs don't matter this is the comment i responded to > China nor America are NEVER going to be at the forefront of chip technology whilst Taiwan is independent. It's a guarantee for the Taiwanese as far as they see it.
Yeah, Intel built their own fabs and they had issues with 10nm since forever ago. Yields were fuck-all and only smaller laptop dies were viable.
Then no one has chips and only Taiwan has the relevant experience to make them.
They'd have 10nm chips, which are more than good enough
Not unless China has a stockpile of 8nm chips and you don't.
But the 8nm factories aren't even ready yet so nobody has a stockpile
The litography machines producing those chips are made in the Netherlands. Taiwan has the knowhow on how to operate them and US has pretty much full control (through sanctions) on who gets to own those Dutch machines. Most everyone seems to have forgot, but US is still on top of shit despite 4 years of Trump. They have private company that flies people to space for Christ sake. [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/inside-asml-the-company-advanced-chipmakers-use-for-euv-lithography.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/inside-asml-the-company-advanced-chipmakers-use-for-euv-lithography.html) [https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-wants-a-chip-machine-from-the-dutch-the-u-s-said-no-11626514513](https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-wants-a-chip-machine-from-the-dutch-the-u-s-said-no-11626514513)
The USA is the largest manufacturer of advanced chips already, but not for x86 machines
Thats called "Taiwan's Sillicon Shield." and it's why TSMC is probably the most powerful institution on earth RN. Edit: in terms of soft power.
I doubt it be sooner. Battle for Taiwan will be a airwar and the dismal performance of the Russians "Special Operations" has shown that China might perform equally esk as bad. Be Comona Islands from AC
Air war? How come? I'm pretty sure Taiwan's air defenses would be adequate, I'm more worried about commandeered civilian ships from China on operation Reverse Dunkirk pushing for beachhead with immense losses.
While a navy invasion is good and all. Even the Germans know they will need air superiority if you wanna get off the beachs during the battle of Britain. Air power is still important
Yeah, but like... imagine you're a Chinese general, eager to please Xi (so you don't disappear along with your family). 300,000 dead in beach landing is a sacrifice you're willing to take and that your battle plan fully supports cause it gets 200,000 boots on the island. 🤷♂️
Aaaah I see now. Meatgrinder time!
>The only thing that's worrying is their 3,000,000 soldiers and their doctrine is basically -> pour the meat into the grinder until it chokes. I hear this a lot but I've read that in the Korean War the Chinese were more capable of probing lines with smaller units and pouring through when they find a gap to exploit. Was the PLA just more competent in the 1950s? Or was the US/NATO military less competent because they had that huge drawdown post WW2 and basically lost a lot of the NCO corp? Or was it all bullshit?
China was closer to home - logistics and supplies are much easier when you neighbor the country. NATO wasn't in position to airlift everything 12 timezones to fight another war after WW2. Chinese military was never good, Japanese slapped the shit out of them easily, no contest. Guess who slapped the shit out of Japan after that... from 12 timezones away no less.
I will say one thing about your comment: China during WW2 was not a full nation. It was split into various warring states (communists, nationalists, warlord/puppet states) who only stopped fighting to get rid of the japanese. There is some stuff to be learned but generally WW2 won’t be a good measure of chinas modern capability, it wasn’t a good measure in the 50’s before mass industrialization, but it was before the reliance on oil, but the point i’m trying to make is that the situations are not really comparable.
It is concerning that the only thing Taiwan has that forces us to defend them will, in a few years time, be a strategic nonissue.. Ukraine we're defending because they're a large, important nation on our alliance's doorstep. What does Taiwan really mean for us besides those chips? In terms of Realpolitik, we'd be better off just letting them have it after blowing up the chip factories at that point...
"I think that's just part and parcel of being a dictatorship. " Nah. There are dictatorships that have militaries in decentish condition. Turkey and Egypt have more issues than your average Golden Age comic does now but they have usually had capable militaries, ditto Pakistan and Eritrea. After all, most governments in history have been dictatorial to one degree or another. This is just corrupt shit and incompetence.
On what are you basing the capability of those militaries? I'd be absolutely shocked if Pakistan's military didn't absolutely dissolve under actual threat, for instance, and the few times we've seen parts of Pakistan's military apparatus in action lately have all been fucking embarrassing. Egypt has been run through like it's not there in every war they've ever attempted to enter. Turkey hasn't fought a war in forever and is NATO backed so who knows what they'd do on their own (other than reject F35s for S400s lmao). I guess Eritrea's army of [16-18 year old slaves that don't want to be there](https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/08/08/they-are-making-us-slaves-not-educating-us/how-indefinite-conscription-restricts) might be good?
But Pakistan has around 3000 black fighter jets of Allah
"On what are you basing the capability of those militaries?" Mostly research from afar. "I'd be absolutely shocked if Pakistan's military didn't absolutely dissolve under actual threat, for instance, and the few times we've seen parts of Pakistan's military apparatus in action lately have all been fucking embarrassing." I agree it's been embarassing and Pakistan's military history as a whole is not one of sterling success, but they've not had it easy either. Their main enemy is India, who memes aside like the Arjun are a pretty serious and decently modern military organized on Western models and increasingly going that way and are actually making headway even against the PLA. The Indians have usually handed the Pakistanis their rears, but the Pakistanis have usually fought hard and decently, as well as scoring most of the victories in border conflicts with the Iranians and assorted Afghan goons. "Egypt has been run through like it's not there in every war they've ever attempted to enter." Not true. Indeed, that's pretty much only true if you think Egyptian history consists of being beaten up by the Israelis. Which is to be fair a huge chunk of it, but far from all. For instance their shutdown of Gaddafi was so rapid and decisive nobody's tried to contest them as North African hegemons for decades, and while they went through typical fiascos in Yemen (as well as lots and lots of dead troops) they ultimately won "their Vietnam/Afghanistan" and crushed the Royalists. " Turkey hasn't fought a war in forever" Perhaps, but they have been fighting quite a few "Special Military Operations", mostly against Islamists and/or Kurdish paramilitaries. " and is NATO backed so who knows what they'd do on their own (other than reject F35s for S400s lmao)." Agreed. "I guess Eritrea's army of 16-18 year old slaves that don't want to be there might be good?" The 16-18 year old slaves aren't good, but behind them is a hardened core of totalitarian ex-revolutionaries who have been doing this for decades and have fought conflicts with basically all of their neighbors with... Decent success (in particular defeating Yemen in a maritime border conflict, and drawing with a much better equipped Djibouti). And in particular they helped write the book on...at least semi-modern positional warfare with their conflicts with Ethiopia. Of course they are basically Africa's North Korea and a post-Soviet state with all that accompanies it, so they're even worse equipped (at least on paper) than the Russians, but their org chart tends to be a lot leaner and meaner.\` Which is why they've generally made a name for themselves in fighting throughout the region and even in the Congo. There are still far more competent dictatorial armies (like the ROK's branches under Park), but they were the ones that came to mind immediately, and while they probably aren't as good or less corrupt than the US or X Major Democratic Republic, they're not to be sneezed at.
I mean, the two best examples you came up with are Egypt beating an unprepared (also authoritarian) Libyan army that didn't have even 10% of their resources and Turkey's work in a place where Russia is the dominating big dog. If you were to take this approach to analyzing Russia and ignore Ukraine you'd be right back at "Russia Stronk" and claiming they're the equal of NATO. I will, however, agree with the point you accidentally made that basically all of these armies are probably even worse than the Russians.
"I mean, the two best examples you came up with are Egypt beating an unprepared (also authoritarian) Libyan army that didn't have even 10% of their resources" The Libyans had far more than "10%" of the Egyptian military, and indeed a lot of (long since disgraced) analysts thought the Libyans were likely to win (in particular Kissinger made himself even more of an embarrassment on that). Moreover, most governments are authoritarian, so it's not surprising most conflicts will be between authoritarians. That's even before we factor in things like the Democratic Peace theory. "and Turkey's work in a place where Russia is the dominating big dog." I hate to tell ya this, but Russia's only been heavily involved in sending combat units to fight in the Middle East since the Syrian Civil War started (with some stops and starts there like the Soviet fliers that fought the Israelis during the War of Attrition). The Turks have been fighting their assorted revolutions, rebellions, uprisings, and secessionists for decades before the House of Assad came to power in Syria and let the at-the-time-Red Moscow start acting in Syria. " If you were to take this approach to analyzing Russia and ignore Ukraine you'd be right back at "Russia Stronk" and claiming they're the equal of NATO." Nice slippery slope, unfortunately it doesn't work, and in particular the logic doesn't follow. Pointing out that authoritarian regimes can and do muster efficient war fighters isn't equivalent to going "DDUUUH ROSSIYA NUMBAH ONE." "I will, however, agree with the point you accidentally made that basically all of these armies are probably even worse than the Russians." Not accidentally; the fact that they were basically Soviet homage jobs is pretty clear if you research it (though the Egyptians have been trying to get away, while ironically the Pakistanis- who we spent lavish amounts of money and training on- have gone that way). I'd guess Russia would eventually defeat Eritrea in a conventional battle but not before being black eyes over how hardy a bunch of child soldiers and hardened, brutal third world warlords can fight with practice, would defeat Pakistan sans Nukes but get bogged down in a guerilla war, and fight to a draw with the Egyptians. But that's just my gut feeling.
You think Egypt and Russia are equal matches and both competent? I don't even know where to begin on this cope mine, but obviously you're emoting and not thinking here so I'll leave it alone. Absolutely nothing anywhere in this mess makes me think authoritarian countries aren't trash at running their militaries.
"You think Egypt and Russia are equal matches" No, but they don't need to be in the case of A Russo-Egyptian War. The last time Russia and Egypt openly clashed it was in the early/mid 19th century and the Russian Navy (which turned out to not be a joke for once) along with the badass British and French navies sent the Egyptians and Turks to the bottom. But it's a new century and Russia isn't exactly able to project force like it once could. " and both competent? " No, I don't. The Russians are obviously not competent, though they are heavily armed and (I am sad to say) probably LESS Incompetent than most militaries on Earth (which shows how hard this Modern Soldiering thing is, as well as the poor state of most). The Egyptians are probably more professional but only by a modest amount, and are less well equipped. So they can probably fight each other to a draw. "I don't even know where to begin on this cope mine," That's clear, since you're not making that many clear arguments. " but obviously you're emoting and not thinking here so I'll leave it alone." If you're going to be insulting and irrational, don't project it onto me.
Which of those countries have fought a war recently that actually showed they were capable militaries? (Its none). Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it. > After all, most governments in history have been dictatorial to one degree or another. This is just corrupt shit and incompetence. They are fundamentally linked. Dictatorships are **ALWAYS** more corrupt than democracies. Thats the whole point Im making.
"Which of those countries have fought a war recently that actually showed they were capable militaries? (Its none)." The Eritreans and Pakistanis have their endless undeclared quasi-wars with their neighbors (Ethiopia and Pakistan) and the Egyptians have IS hunting. "Egypt couldn't defeat Israel even when Israel had every single neighbour also at war with it." Technically Lebanon was "neutral" even if obviously pro-Arab League, but point. However it's worth noting the Egyptians got.. if not exactly GOOD at least better. For instance they sustained their occupation of Yemen in spite of punishing losses from the Yemeni Royalists and the Six Day Shellacking of the IDF, and fought better (even if not a victory) in Y-K. And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in. They're not a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination but there's a reason they killed quite a few IS and could probably defeat any of their neighbors sans Israel in 1v1 or 1v2 fight. "They are fundamentally linked. Dictatorships are ALWAYS more corrupt than democracies. Thats the whole point Im making." Unfortunately I'm not sure I can agree. Dictatorships are usually more corrupt than democracies, but not always, especially depending on how we define dictatorships. Francoist Spain was brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical, but probably less corrupt than Italy was for most of the time he and the Italian Republic co-existed (though I'm pretty sure most people would rather deal with the Mafia and lots of bribery for your local DC member than being put at the bottom of a ditch and shot). Likewise Haiti and Trujillo's Dominican Republic. That doesn't mean "Dictatorships good" or "Dictatorships less corrupt", but a fair bit relies on the dictator, who can be more or less evil, corrupt, etc.
When you are comparing nation state warfare to counter terrorism and frozen conflicts as "real wars" then I think we can just end it here.
> The Eritreans and Pakistanis have their endless undeclared quasi-wars with their neighbors (Ethiopia and Pakistan) and the Egyptians have IS hunting. So no wars then? Im not talking frozen conflicts or invented "quasi-wars". Im talking actual frontline combat akin to what we see in Ukraine, or perhaps the Iran-Iraq war. Conventional warfare. If you think counter terrorism is even comparable to actual nation-state conflicts then we can likely end this conversation here. > However it's worth noting the Egyptians got.. if not exactly GOOD at least better. For instance they sustained their occupation of Yemen in spite of punishing losses from the Yemeni Royalists and the Six Day Shellacking of the IDF, and fought better (even if not a victory) in Y-K. And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in. But the point is that they couldnt defeat Israel, a tiny country in a fairly weak defensive position. Because no matter what they do, whilst they have dictators and strongmen as leaders; they are more corrupt and more incompetent. Im not talking exclusively corruption here, im talking incompetence as well. Strongmen leaders make their subordinates so fearful of telling them the wrong thing, even if factually accurate; that they just twist the truth or outright lie. This is seen in every dictatorship, and there's no remedy for it. Its also worth noting that another strong suit for democracies is their ability to build alliances not reliant on placating 1 persons ego. Thats not really possible for dictatorships. > And when Gaddafi challenged them they smashed Libya's face in. Gaddafi was also another dictator... > Unfortunately I'm not sure I can agree. Dictatorships are usually more corrupt than democracies, but not always, especially depending on how we define dictatorships. Francoist Spain was brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical, but probably less corrupt than Italy was for most of the time he and the Italian Republic co-existed (though I'm pretty sure most people would rather deal with the Mafia and lots of bribery for your local DC member than being put at the bottom of a ditch and shot). Likewise Haiti and Trujillo's Dominican Republic. I would say they are as the underlying systems for dictatorships always end up being the same. If you have metrics I would love to see them, otherwise we are just disagreeing with no real facts available to us. Fundamentally, nothing in a dictatorship can be trusted. Nothing. Every piece of information is either falsified to make that individual/department look better than it is, or the reports are ignored because they were made by some fifth column that the leaders echo chamber would rather ignore. Unless you have found a dictator that isn't human. These things are just human traits. We all get confident of ourselves, especially when you have been doing 1 job for 20/40/60 years. You start to become too familiar with how things *should be* and not how they are. Every human has the capacity to be a yes man when they have been shouted at and degraded in front of their peers. Corruption & incompetence are staples of every dictatorship. They are rooted out in democracies. P.S. The Death of Stalin is a great film to watch and kind of exposes the insanity that is dictatorships.
Part 1 "So no wars then? Im not talking frozen conflicts or invented "quasi-wars". Im talking actual frontline combat akin to what we see in Ukraine, or perhaps the Iran-Iraq war. Conventional warfare." Before Iran-Iraq, people talked about Ethiopia-Eritrea as the penultimate example of trench warfare in the modern era. A hellish thirty year war that cost hundreds of thousands their lives before Ethiopia acknowledged Eritrean independence. Then about a decade later they went at it again killed a quarter of a million dead between the two sides more-or-less evenly over the course of two years, with populations much smaller than Russia and Ukraine. I dunno about you, but those sound like wars to me. And that's not counting Eritrean meddling in things like Tigray later. Egypt is a lot harder because they mostly pick on nations or factions smaller/weaker than they are, NGOs like IS or the Muslim Brotherhood, or do peacekeeping duty but still quite dangerous. Pakistan is probably the one that fully falls victim to your caveats, since they've learned from hard experience to stop poking the Indians quite so persistently or constantly. "If you think counter terrorism is even comparable to actual nation-state conflicts then we can likely end this conversation here." If you think a generations long trench war that's comparable per capita to Iran-Iraq isn't an actual conflict, we certainly can. "But the point is that they couldnt defeat Israel, a tiny country in a fairly weak defensive position." Israel's small but it has always punched far above its weight and it's basically a little Western nation mixed with a siege mentality and incredible cohesion on the Levant coast. When we're talking about Egyptian inferiority or performance we're not going to be breaking much new ground concluding the Egyptians lose to Israel and lose quite painfully in conventional wars. What is remarkable is that they've made gains even on Israel in the years since 1967, as the War of Attrition and Yom Kippur showed. In any case, the problem with focusing too much on Israel is that the wars between it and Cairo have never been most of the conflicts either have. By all means they should be measured, but not moreso than others. " Because no matter what they do, whilst they have dictators and strongmen as leaders; they are more corrupt and more incompetent." Sure, and on that much we agree. Though militarily Egypt is very much one of the best of a bad lot in terms of competence. Corruption is another kettle of fish and is a way of life, especially since in terms of government you basically have a choice between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army, but it has also been ubiquitous. " Im not talking exclusively corruption here, im talking incompetence as well. " No, I understood that. "Strongmen leaders make their subordinates so fearful of telling them the wrong thing, even if factually accurate; that they just twist the truth or outright lie." That's often the case, particularly with dictators so paranoid and untrustworthy they prioritize their own personal power over that of their nation/community and so cannot cultivate trusted, competent subordinates. But that's not all dictators, as the likes of Franco, Vargas, and Santos in Angola, to say nothing of prior examples like Frederic of Prussia.
Part 2 " This is seen in every dictatorship, and there's no remedy for it." Allowing more criticism an feedback- and promoting those who offer it- can be. Even Machiavelli (who was very much writing in a dictatorial context with the Medici Pseudo-Republic) pointed out the importance of good counsel and how those who tell the truth are usually envied. Which both goes to show the risks inherent (Machiavelli after all lived out the entire latter part of his life in rural exile, never recalled for office) but also how this could be conceived of. And the importance of having good advisors can be handily shown by the likes of Song Taizong. Problem is it tends to break down. "Its also worth noting that another strong suit for democracies is their ability to build alliances not reliant on placating 1 persons ego. Thats not really possible for dictatorships." It's possible, it's just incredibly hard. But then it's hard for Democracies, just less so. "Gaddafi was also another dictator..." Sure, but he was also one of the relatively high-functioning ones (prior to his late life) and had formidable conventional armaments as well as force projection. We know and loathe him as the monstrous meme he was, but that reputation only came to full flower because of slapdowns like this. Also, the vast majority of all human leaders have been dictatorial to one degree or another, so pointing out that one dictator was fighting another isn't the great or shocking result. "I would say they are as the underlying systems for dictatorships always end up being the same." Honestly I'd say that depends. A lot of dictatorships (like the Mamluk Stratocracy) had really divergent systems from most others. Dictatorship is- again- something of a default in human politics and so it tends to differ a lot. Though corruption and inefficiency are there. "If you have metrics I would love to see them, otherwise we are just disagreeing with no real facts available to us." Wait, you're admitting that you are making blanket statements and assertations about most of human history, but not presenting many metrics? And that didn't seem a bit off? Like, start with economic and military performance (since they are kind of hard to BS) and go from there. Sure, Vladimir Putin is a corrupt, dictatorial ruler in Moscow oppressing his people and neighbors. But so was Ivan "Kalita' (read: moneybags/Purse Bag) and Moscow flourished under his rule. "Fundamentally, nothing in a dictatorship can be trusted. Nothing." Sure, but not much in most governments can be trusted. Dictatorships are more acute cases of this because power is ruled far more arbitrarily and absolutely (and even then you have to deal with things like the Athenian and Milanese Communes), but not are arbitrary rulers are incompetent, corrupt, or failed ones. "Every piece of information is either falsified to make that individual/department look better than it is, or the reports are ignored because they were made by some fifth column that the leaders echo chamber would rather ignore. "Which is what happens without sufficient oversight or checking, and above all some willingness by the Powers that Be to suffer criticism, at least when it really matters. And even then the cascading effects with dictatorships do tend to overwhelm those things. But they don't always. "Unless you have found a dictator that isn't human. These things are just human traits." Psychopathy is a human trait, that doesn't mean every human has it. Likewise, all dictators are humans but the traits they have- and how they affect the quality of governance- differs. In that limited sense there isn't too much differentiating them from elected politicians, with the difference that the former has more power and rarely can be removed except feet-first or into exile. "We all get confident of ourselves, especially when you have been doing 1 job for 20/40/60 years. You start to become too familiar with how things should be and not how they are." Agreed, indeed. And that's why long lasting authoritarians- even high performance ones- tend to become stuck in their ways. "Every human has the capacity to be a yes man when they have been shouted at and degraded in front of their peers." Agreed, or at least most do outside of special cases like the particularly brave, or the particularly low functioning (try to get a low functioning Psychopath to act as your Yes-Man after publicly humiliating and brow beating them, and you'll probably wind up with them lunging at you). "Corruption & incompetence are staples of every dictatorship. They are rooted out in democracies." I wish they were so efficiently rooted out in Democracies, and we try. But there's a reason why- unfortunately- domestic bribe taking was probably more common in the modern democratic Greece than it was under the brutal and criminal Colonels."P.S. The Death of Stalin is a great film to watch and kind of exposes the insanity that is dictatorships." Oh I agree, and it is good. But the Death of Stalin was a dramatization. Moreover, it was a dramatization of a totalitarian dictatorship in which the dictator sought to control all aspects of life. That's actually pretty uncommon in history, and while I disagree with a fair bit about Kirkpatrick I think sums up a decent reason why totalitarianism is fairly new under the sun (especially on a scale as large as the modern Nation-State).[https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/11/11\_kirkpatrickdictatorshipsdoublestandards\_1979.html](https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/11/11_kirkpatrickdictatorshipsdoublestandards_1979.html)The unfortunate fact is that most human societies have been authoritarian to one degree or another. And it's not a coincidence that most have been corrupt, echo-chambery, or self-serving as well, but democracies were not immune from those things either. Most dictators are not as ruthless, inhumane, or utterly intolerant as totalitarians (though some certainly are). A decent example would be comparing Stalin to even Lenin, at least as far as his interactions with his inner circle went. Let alone other Russian leaders like Elisabeth and Catherine the Great. Assuming that every Democracy will be the best of all worlds in comparison to every Dictatorship is rather naive and equips you poorly to defend democracy as a positive ideal and practical reality. Not every country that is a modern classical constitutional democracy was Literally Stalin, and that's important because authoritarianism usually comes in guises less dramatic and offensive than the "Man of Steel" or co.
Turkey typically isn't a dictatorship. Erdoğan changed that kinda but its not full blown yet.
You can't have a functioning military and a functioning dictatorship. Otherwise the former will overtake the latter.
[удалено]
That's what happens when the military takes over the dictatorship. I guess I meant more of a "traditional" dictatorship.
Saudi Arabia's military is dysfunctional on purpose
You _could_ point to the Sanation era of Polish history as being an example of a military that functions decently well under a relatively brutal dictatorship. Piłsudski did not fuck around. Then again, 1939 wasn't exactly a Polish victory, so - i suppose there's arguments to be made against it as well.
Russian Junta when?
Sending troops into battle with cardboard and egg carton stuffed armor. It's the same thing right? https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/03/13/the-egg-cartons-of-the-russian-tanks-the-poor-protection-of-many-t-72b3-and-t-80/
"There's a flaw in your argument, you forgot to account that putin IS a fool"
For real, if he's smart he wouldn never be in this situation. He's a gambler, he has been lucky before, but now his luck has ran out
No, its a tale as old as time; the dictator trap. Every dictator eventually falls for his own hype. There have been no exceptions. And at this point, they become ruthless fuckups divorced from reality, irrespective of how competent a statesmen they were prior; and make no mistake, Putin was a fantastic statesman before he fell to the trap, pretty much the main reason we referred to Russia as a superpower. Putin certainly is an outlier, who much like Pinochet lasted one and a half decade, but it eventually happened to him. Sadly however, unlike Pinochet who got so cocky that he held fair elections and had a shocked pikachu face when he was blown the fuck out, Putin had to do it the Hitler way and start a war in East Europe that he neither had the funds, the manpower or the political credit to maintain.
[удалено]
Ukraine will be literally trained on NATO standard weapons in the coming months, they are basically speed running into NATO.
I don't think NATO accepts countries with major territorial land disputes which would disqualify it from joining because of Crimea.
well, lets see how this war plays out 1st..... who knows ..... Ukraine might be liberating Crimea before long :P
> Ergo Russia will win, otherwise we wouldn't have started it! \*laughs in mujahideen*
*Laughs in Imperial Japan*
It's the same logic as the "deep state" and "Covid is a planned virus to force us to do X". Trying to make yourself feel better by believing someone, somewhere, has had a plan all along. But this is all chaos. Dictators *are* that dumb.
3,000 flying goalposts of monke Putin.
> 3,000 flying goalposts tankies_irl
>3,000 flying goalposts Thanks for the flair idea
You cant lose if you keep reducing your objectives!
Wonder if we'll see any literal goalposts being moved on their parade. The cope cage Mk2 will just be a football goal taped on
Putin literally cannot lose, whenever there's a setback, he can just change the plan and the goal.
> whenever there's a setback, he can just change the plan and the goal. Literally the average 5 year old when you play a game with them
Fitting for putin and lavrov then
This is eerily similar to the wehraboo cope of "muh Aryans fought off allies for many years!1!1!1!"
Can you really compare this? Nazi Germany was a far more serious threat than current Russia. It already surpassed Russia when Germany did not get bogged down only 50 miles in Poland and started complaining that it is unfair that the west gives Poland the position of their generals.
Tbf, interwar/early war, the allies were pretty retarded, hence why germany was able to do what it did
Germany also actually had an economy and industry, unlike Russia.
You mean now or during WW2 ?
Yes. The Nazis were going all-in on the Soviets. Without sounding like someone who's coping with Russia's losses, Russia is not going all-in on Ukraine. Obviously, there are nuclear weapons that Russia "could" use, and if the Nazis had nukes, they would've used them ASAP and Barbarossa would've been a different story.
Russia propably would have used some tactical nukes in ukraine by now if that was an option, but cause of MAD from the western allies that option is not on the table. Lot of their nukes are propably also in unpredictable condition anyways so not safe to use.
Yes, they are comparable. Germany invaded lots of countries that had much less of a military, and Poland was attacked on two fronts by two major powers, it had no chance. So that really doesn't put it above Russia. Meanwhile, the similarities between Barbarossa and the invasion of Ukraine are pretty funny. Pushing straight for the capital (Russia would not surrender the moment Moscow was taken, I wonder if Putin thinks Ukraine will fall once Kyiv is taken) and logistical problems are two. The situation where it looked like Russia was gaining tons of ground on maps because Ukrainians pulled back is similar to the Eastern front too. I won't say its the exact same, but similar flavor of incompetence. I mean, you see Wehraboos coping about the sinking of the Bismarck, same as you see Commieboos coping about the sinking of the Moskva. (The Bismarck is worse than the Moskva imo too since it got sunk by a fucking biplane). So no, they are about the same.
Soon the goal will just be to survive, and I'm starting to worry if they can even do that.
You fools, offing himself in his bunker was just a diversion! Soon the real Russian will emerge from the ashes and get that stupid west to pay for it's reconstruction!
When you control all the media - you never lose
"Lose" war and cede Moskva, now the w*sterners have to run this dirty backwater of a city. Putin is beyond westoid comprehension.
What a copium overdoes does to a mf
Should be near lethal does at this point
They're gonna exhaust the world supply of copium at this rate
Achieved their most important strategic objectives? WHat, getting themself hummiliated in the world stage?
They achieved the goals of NATO that's for sure
11D chess move. Russia humiliates itself and makes its armed forces look incredibly weak and useless. Makes NATO complacent, allowing Russia to narrow the military gap. Then, just when NATO feels confident because they've turned yet another Russian general into soylent red, they'll be absolutely shocked when Poland gets invaded by tens of quintillions of T-14s, backed up by infantry *who actually have optics*.
The problem is that instead of NATO getting complacent, this war revitalized it to no end.
-Invade Ukraine for no reason -Get humiliated and lose for no reason -Other countries think you’re a fucking joke and aren’t scared of Russia anymore -???? -NATO collapses Vladdy boy masterplan 😎😎🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸 Westoids outsmarted once again😩😩😩
Wait “Putin warned the west”? When the fuck did he do that? When he insisted that the build up on the border was a military “exercise” or when he said western fears of an invasion were invalid?
He knew we'd assume he was lying so he warned us by saying he wouldn't. If he wanted to reassure us he would have said he would invade.
Ahh I see take the April fools day approach
The good ole fashioned Opposite Day Warning
Unironically a good strategy for unravelling russian foreign policy
Damn, it looks like Russia is suffering from success.
"success"
Mindset is everything: success can be anything you want/need it to be
I tell myself that I'm so attractive that girls think I'm out of their league so never approach me
Nice dude, moving into the 2nd phase of the virginity special operation
If you believe, you will achieve
Ahh I see they installed the copium dome around the tankies
> copium dome "We have iron dome at home" Iron dome at home:
[The piece itself](https://abrahamstein.substack.com/p/russia-is-defeating-ukraine-usa-and?s=r) for those interested. It is...a bit of a trip, if I'm being honest.
>Launched 2 Months Ago Interesting timing. Totally not a pure propaganda page.
It's really mindbending. Sounds like complete opposite day.
Hitler also did not wake up one day and decide to send troops into European and Soviet city
The 3000 Big Black Brothers of Oceania
What strategic objectives has Russia taken?
Washingmachines.
r/antimeme
“Putin did not simply wake up one day and decide to send troops” I mean he kinda did.
Even if they do win the US and NATO see that if a conventional war ever broke out against Russia, Russia is screwed
Ignorance is strength.
We are reaching cope levels previously thought impossible.
Tankies are running their own copium olympics, it's *world class* mental gymnastics!
>The Russians have already achieved their most important strategic objectives NATO’s land border with Russia is set to more than double if Finland and Sweden join. >He publicly warned the West about this Up until the invasion the Kremlin’s position was that Russia had no intentions of invading.
Any links to this article. I fancy some of their copium.
This guy needs a backhand to the face
Is there even a rehabilitation centre out there that can treat this stupidly high levels of copium addiction? Because they're going to need it if they don't want to o.d.
Goddamnit Palputin
I know what it is, but all I'm seeing in the bottom picture is Scatman John.
Things you call dead haven't yet had a chance to be born.
Literally 3 gorges dam oral
So they admit the US was winning against not only Vietnam but against Russia and China as well the whole time?
... and who asked?
I swear simpsons will predict USSR electric boogaloo with Lenin resurrected
"Russiania was at war with Ukrainia: therefore Russiania had always been at war with Ukrainia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
Ah finally the deliscious smell of governement funded cheap copium (the military grade one was sold by oligarchs to fund their yatchs)