Comments by "Ivancho" (@ivancho5854) on "Ukrainian Consequences: The New American War Model" video.

@StereoSpace The Ukraine doesn't need to shoot down any Russian missiles to defeat Russia though. The missiles strikes are making the Ukrainian people suffer for the internal politics of Russia and will not influence the outcome of the war which will be won on the battlefield.
3
Peter has repeatedly stated that an invasion of Taiwan would probably result in a blockade of oil from the Middle East to China. Game over.
2
@prst99 The USA? India? Even better the world could just be too scared of sanctions from the US to trade with them. That would work brilliantly even if it was only 75% effective. Let's face it, the only reason that Russia is allowed to export oil is because Europe needs time to transfer to other suppliers. Then there's insurance. Do you know how much maritime insurance is handled by the West? What country in their right mind would let a tanker into their waters without insurance and no one would trust a Chinese insurer to pay up. Checkmate paper kitty.
2
@JohnnyAmerique Anti ship missiles in large quantities would certainly help Taiwan. Unfortunately Whinnie the Shit is so isolated and devoid of intel that he is a bit of a loose cannon and unpredictable. Fortunately he and China seem to be turning inwards which probably reduces the real threat to Taiwan.
2
China could then be easily blockaded of oil from the Middle East by the US Navy. Or even the Indian Navy for that matter!
2
Perhaps it is useful for the US to fight some small wars not to "win" them, but rather to keep it's military and military industrial complex active. Think of it as exercise. Just a thought.
1
@prst99 There's been a lot of talk that this is the end of the US$ because they "weaponized" it. I call that BS. If you invade a country, you face international consequences and that includes financial. Simple. I think that this will become much more common in future. All the best.
1
@bighands69 Unfortunately if North Korea ever did start anything it's incredible number of fortified artillery would devastate Seoul and everywhere near the border. It is just wishful thinking to write off the nuclear threat and chemical artillery rounds would be very effective against the cities in range. True the North wouldn't stand a chance of an actual invasion, but South Korea would be destroyed. Any war would rapidly escalate and would certainly be a death sentence for almost everyone in North Korea which they know. China would also be extraordinarily angry at them for disrupting the balance of power and forcing the US to become directly involved in the region. Remember the Korean War was not good for China. Therein lies the deterrence, so let us hope that it remains effective.
1
@prst99 Do you think that Western leaders have ever cared about South Africa? It has virtually zero geopolitical significance to the world apart from being a supplier of some minerals which they continue to do despite the country's incredible recent decline. There is a huge difference between what politicians say and do.
1
From a ruthlessly cynical perspective the West is providing just enough military equipment to one former member of the Soviet Union (Ukraine) to allow them to slowly grind down another former member of the Soviet Union (Russia and perhaps Belarus), while inflicting the maximum amount of damage to its capacity to wage future wars. Ukrainian casualties and the time it takes to liberate territory given this outlook are irrelevant as long as the West is able to convince Ukraine that the West is helping. The West will quietly bear a grudge against those who seek to destroy us with nuclear weapons, such as Russia. China had better watch out. War is hell. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
1
@QuizmasterLaw True. France always wants to be the grand heroic peace maker. Germany thinks more trade = less war, due to selective memory loss (peak trade between France and Germany before WW2 was just before the panzers rolled in). They are still searching for their balls 70 years after the US castrated them.
1
@ClockworksOfGL And I understand why the US is doing this: you have to be careful when fighting the nuclear armed bear. But it must be so frustrating for the Ukrainians (it certainly is for me) not to take the fight to the enemy. Teams could go into Russia and burn factories and refineries to the ground easily. At the end of WW2 the British saved the Ukrainian SS division from deportation back to the Ukraine and instead took them as immigrants into the UK in absolute secrecy (it only came out recently). Why would they welcome them? Because they could pass as Russians better than any one else. The Cold War was a harsh mistress. Fast forward to today, who could still pass as Russian the easiest of any other people? Still the Ukrainians. Yet why aren't they wreaking havoc in Mother Russia? Because the US has told them not to probably (yet, anyway). Very frustrating, but you have to box clever to win. All the best.
1
From a geopolitical perspective is Syria important enough for anyone but direct neighbours to do anything about now that Russia isn't involved and can't be in the future? Probably not.
1
So did Peter just accidentally identify the one place that Russia could detonate a nuclear weapon with great effect and low risk? In space.
1
@QuizmasterLaw Agreed, lots of reasons for no nukes.
1