LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:13 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:27 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:25 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:59 pm The Russian Federation is a rump malignancy … the remnant of two prior failed states, the Soviet Union and Russian Empire.

The Russian Federation is dangerous … nothing will change that. The long-term strategic goal should be to neutralize Russia politically and economically, while castrating its military.

That's the propaganda that Putin is using to stoke the paranoia of the Russian people & generate support for this war.
The neocon, globalist decadent West is out to further dismember Mother Russia. It plays right into Putin's hands.

Yeah, Doc is the reason Putin is a war criminal.

Serious question. Do you think it would be in our strategic interest if the Russian Federation came apart ?
Yes or No ? with no equivocating about democratic transition, blah, blah. There's no way that can be assured.
Do you think it's worth the risk of unforeseen consequences, given that we're demonstrating that Putin can be contained, when not deterred ?

Serious answer? Yes.

Obviously that's just the binary answer, since you demand such.

You don't want "equivocation", but I feel the same way about the CCP.

Putin's Russia, the "Russian Federation", is now an authoritarian kleptocracy with outlandish ambitions to dominate their neighbors through force and propaganda. Their regime is correctly understood as "evil", endorsing its continuation as such is to endorse "evil".

Of course, there's a heck of a lot of challenge to how to affect change in Russia...does it require a "failed state" chaos, or can there be moderation under different leadership?

No, we're actually not demonstrating that Putin can be contained. He's unleashed horrific war crimes on his neighbor, having failed to achieve hegemony through corruption and propaganda, which he is actively attempting in multiple countries...including here in the US. It's not "contained" at all.

And it will continue if there is any faltering in Western resolve.

This constant blaming of weaker neighbors for not being stronger, while also blaming their decision to seek strong allies and democracy...as if those are "invitations" to war atrocities, is just gross, Putinesque propaganda.

I've read your back and forth with a fan, and he's right...if we understand and accept that the "Russian" (Putin hardliner) mindset is as you say, then we much recognize that there will be no peace without Putin's defeat.

I think that begins with the Russian military turning tail and retreating to pre 2014, internationally recognized, Russian Federation recognized borders. The Russians can sort themselves from there, but the only path back to international legitimacy and economic prosperity that the West should offer is with a new leadership willing to hold war criminals accountable and to provide, at least in part, some reparations...and, of course, the return of the stolen children of Ukraine...

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 4:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:33 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:30 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:59 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:47 pm Why are you working so feverishly to pretend this isn't a major accomplishment? China could have already pulled the trigger on this----and Biden shut that down.

Because I don't see it as such. Why are you working so feverishly to hype it into a major accomplishment ?

Simple. I don't want this war to last any longer than it has to.

Biden showing the intel we have on China is a clever thing to do, and took away a tool from our enemy, AND kept the war from being prolonged in the present. These are good things.

You don't agree? Ok. That's fine.

I hope that subsequent events prove that you were prescient on this.

I don't understand this response. China cannot----cannot-----provide ammo to Russia clandestinely. Score one for US intel, and one for Biden.

That option is gone. Dead. Right now. No crystal ball needed.

The question that DOES remain is: will China do it overtly. That's it. For that? I have no idea, but my guess is that odds that Xi will do that are low.

To much risk, very little reward.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 4:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:33 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:30 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:59 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:47 pm Why are you working so feverishly to pretend this isn't a major accomplishment? China could have already pulled the trigger on this----and Biden shut that down.

Because I don't see it as such. Why are you working so feverishly to hype it into a major accomplishment ?

Simple. I don't want this war to last any longer than it has to.

Biden showing the intel we have on China is a clever thing to do, and took away a tool from our enemy, AND kept the war from being prolonged in the present. These are good things.

You don't agree? Ok. That's fine.

I hope that subsequent events prove that you were prescient on this.

I don't understand this response. China cannot----cannot-----provide ammo to Russia clandestinely. Score one for US intel, and one for Biden.

That option is gone. Dead. Right now. No crystal ball needed.

The question that DOES remain is: will China do it overtly. That's it. For that? I have no idea, but my guess is that odds that Xi will do that are low.

To much risk, very little reward.

https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheNation/ ... 554958459/

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:34 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:09 pm ...you should have been really impressed with Biden with a point we discussed previously.

He declassified the intel that China was considering sending ammo to Russia...and even try and hide that they're doing it.... and sent that info. around the globe.

Really, really smart move. Tip of that hat to him, no?

If it works.

It already did work. How do you not see that? It was a smart thing to do, OS. He told the world that Xi was thinking about sneaking stuff in. That option has been removed by Biden.

Now Xi's only option is to overtly arm Russia, instead of sneaking it in and claiming "it wasn't us".

Call balls and strikes, OS. Biden's move took away one tool in Russia's toolbox to prolong the war.

The war's not over. You don't know what China might do. Don't celebrate before you're in the end zone.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:52 pm ...because we discussed this before.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:34 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:09 pm ...you should have been really impressed with Biden with a point we discussed previously.

He declassified the intel that China was considering sending ammo to Russia...and even try and hide that they're doing it.... and sent that info. around the globe.

Really, really smart move. Tip of that hat to him, no?

If it works.

It already did work. How do you not see that? It was a smart thing to do, OS. He told the world that Xi was thinking about sneaking stuff in. That option has been removed by Biden.

Now Xi's only option is to overtly arm Russia, instead of sneaking it in and claiming "it wasn't us".

Call balls and strikes, OS. Biden's move took away one tool in Russia's toolbox to prolong the war.

The war's not over. You don't know what China might do. Don't celebrate before you're in the end zone.

https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheNation/ ... 554958459/

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:03 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:52 pm ...because we discussed this before.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:34 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:09 pm ...you should have been really impressed with Biden with a point we discussed previously.

He declassified the intel that China was considering sending ammo to Russia...and even try and hide that they're doing it.... and sent that info. around the globe.

Really, really smart move. Tip of that hat to him, no?

If it works.

It already did work. How do you not see that? It was a smart thing to do, OS. He told the world that Xi was thinking about sneaking stuff in. That option has been removed by Biden.

Now Xi's only option is to overtly arm Russia, instead of sneaking it in and claiming "it wasn't us".

Call balls and strikes, OS. Biden's move took away one tool in Russia's toolbox to prolong the war.

The war's not over. You don't know what China might do. Don't celebrate before you're in the end zone.

https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheNation/ ... 554958459/

This link doesn't change anything from our discussion. You lost me. I rebolded what I wrote for emphasis. China can't sneak stuff in without US intel finding out.

The question stands: is Xi willing to arm Russia overtly, and risk trade?

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/0 ... ct/384001/
NATO Should Offer Ukraine an Arms Supply Pact
It’s the strongest commitment the alliance can realistically give.

BY HENRIK LARSEN, SENIOR RESEARCHER, CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES, MARCH 17, 2023

No matter how Russia’s ongoing offensive and Ukraine’s expected counteroffensive go, Ukraine’s survival hinges on lasting military support from NATO allies. To stiffen their commitment, the allies should consider formalizing an arms supply pact with Kyiv.

Numerous Western advocates for Ukrainian membership of NATO (here, here, here, here, here, and here) fail to appreciate that most alliance capitals do not see a vital interest in the defense of Ukraine. Although NATO has espoused Ukraine’s principled right to choose its own alliance at every summit since it first promised eventual membership in Bucharest in 2008, the ensuing 15 years have not changed its members’ calculation that a formal invitation is not worth risking a war with Russia. Indeed, the slow decision and now the slow delivery of battle tanks suggests that NATO allies in the current circumstance are unwilling even to give Ukraine the weapons that are necessary for a total victory.

But they might agree to a larger commitment if Ukraine can show them how more weapons might end the war. This would be a new circumstance that would attenuate the worries among certain NATO allies about arming Ukraine without a clear end objective.

The strongest such commitment that the alliance can realistically give is an official NATO guarantee for weapons deliveries for decades to come—enough to persuade Kyiv that Russia will not use a ceasefire as breathing pause before a new attack, and that a settlement could bring it lasting peace allowing it to eventually join and prosper within the EU.

If formalized as a NATO-Ukraine arms supply pact, it would put the alliance’s prestige on the line and make Ukraine’s defense a credibility issue. The NATO guarantee should include increased deliveries of advanced and heavy weapons, ammunition production equaling or surpassing Russia’s production, and otherwise integrating the Ukrainian armed forces into NATO defense supply chains. It should also include weapons that NATO allies have so far refrained from giving due to fears of escalation: Western fighter jets and the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, that can hit targets deep inside Russian territory.

An official NATO guarantee to the armament of Ukraine would be an improvement over the U.S.-led Ramstein format or the bilateral commitments that are currently being considered. It should include a NATO mechanism for coordinating weapon shipments and trainings of the Ukrainian military in how to use the advanced weapons and advisory in how to shift from Soviet-standard to NATO-standard equipment and organization of its armed forces. On the other hand, Ukraine will emerge from the war as one of Europe’s main military powers, with huge reserves of trained manpower that probably can teach NATO more about military tactics than the other way round.

NATO should put the idea of an arms supply pact with Ukraine on the agenda of the Vilnius Summit in July of this year, parallel to its own buildup of 300,000 high-readiness troops for improved defense and deterrence. It will be clearer by then if Ukraine will have success with its expected counteroffensive. NATO should link the pact it to its internal discussion about defense spending and their proper investment, especially how to foster European ammunition production sufficient to supply Ukraine against Russia without weakening the U.S. capability to deter China in the western Pacific.

NATO’s own border may be next in line if Russian imperialism is not stopped in Ukraine. A critical number of allies may consider a consider a fundamental increase in the supply of weapons to Ukraine if this could be made part of a package that could bring an end to the biggest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Sustaining Ukraine’s resistance in the decades ahead offers NATO a low-cost option to contain and degrade Russia’s military capability.

Henrik Larsen is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich focused on NATO/transatlantic security. He served as a political adviser for the EU in Ukraine from 2014 to 2019.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:02 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:13 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:27 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:25 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:59 pm The Russian Federation is a rump malignancy … the remnant of two prior failed states, the Soviet Union and Russian Empire.

The Russian Federation is dangerous … nothing will change that. The long-term strategic goal should be to neutralize Russia politically and economically, while castrating its military.

That's the propaganda that Putin is using to stoke the paranoia of the Russian people & generate support for this war.
The neocon, globalist decadent West is out to further dismember Mother Russia. It plays right into Putin's hands.

Yeah, Doc is the reason Putin is a war criminal.

Serious question. Do you think it would be in our strategic interest if the Russian Federation came apart ?
Yes or No ? with no equivocating about democratic transition, blah, blah. There's no way that can be assured.
Do you think it's worth the risk of unforeseen consequences, given that we're demonstrating that Putin can be contained, when not deterred ?

Serious answer? Yes.

Obviously that's just the binary answer, since you demand such.

You don't want "equivocation", but I feel the same way about the CCP.

Putin's Russia, the "Russian Federation", is now an authoritarian kleptocracy with outlandish ambitions to dominate their neighbors through force and propaganda. Their regime is correctly understood as "evil", endorsing its continuation as such is to endorse "evil".

Of course, there's a heck of a lot of challenge to how to affect change in Russia...does it require a "failed state" chaos, or can there be moderation under different leadership?

No, we're actually not demonstrating that Putin can be contained. He's unleashed horrific war crimes on his neighbor, having failed to achieve hegemony through corruption and propaganda, which he is actively attempting in multiple countries...including here in the US. It's not "contained" at all.

And it will continue if there is any faltering in Western resolve.

This constant blaming of weaker neighbors for not being stronger, while also blaming their decision to seek strong allies and democracy...as if those are "invitations" to war atrocities, is just gross, Putinesque propaganda.

I've read your back and forth with a fan, and he's right...if we understand and accept that the "Russian" (Putin hardliner) mindset is as you say, then we much recognize that there will be no peace without Putin's defeat.

I think that begins with the Russian military turning tail and retreating to pre 2014, internationally recognized, Russian Federation recognized borders. The Russians can sort themselves from there, but the only path back to international legitimacy and economic prosperity that the West should offer is with a new leadership willing to hold war criminals accountable and to provide, at least in part, some reparations...and, of course, the return of the stolen children of Ukraine...

Are you willing for the US to go to war to achieve your objective ? Because that's the only way to make it happen.

Your sympathy for "weaker neighbor" Ukraine & our under-prepared EU NATO allies is naive. The newer NATO members have had 30+ years of EU prosperity to bolster their defenses. Poland is the only new member who has done so. One of the reasons that Sweden & Finland are so welcome in joining NATO is because they've had to build their own defenses without free-riding on US coat tails. The front line Baltic states have no fighter jets or tanks of their own. Slovakia just gave all their fighters (11 Mig-29s) to Ukraine. Bulgaria has 11 questionably airworthy Mig-29's. Romania is finally buying some used F-16's from Norway but half their interceptors are still 50 year old Mig-21's. The Czechs & Hungary each lease 12 Gripens from Sweden. That's the air power our E flank NATO allies can launch to defend NATO from the air. Germany's military readiness is still a joke. They're backsliding on spending more on their own defense, citing their donations to Ukraine & increased energy costs.

We can't even positively influence our W hemisphere neighbors & you think we can convert the Russian Federation & Communist China.
Reparations, war crimes tribunals ? As soon as the shooting stops, the rehab of Russia will begin by rapacious EUroburghers seeking cheaper energy & resources & a return to Russia as a market.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:03 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:52 pm ...because we discussed this before.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:34 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:09 pm ...you should have been really impressed with Biden with a point we discussed previously.

He declassified the intel that China was considering sending ammo to Russia...and even try and hide that they're doing it.... and sent that info. around the globe.

Really, really smart move. Tip of that hat to him, no?

If it works.

It already did work. How do you not see that? It was a smart thing to do, OS. He told the world that Xi was thinking about sneaking stuff in. That option has been removed by Biden.

Now Xi's only option is to overtly arm Russia, instead of sneaking it in and claiming "it wasn't us".

Call balls and strikes, OS. Biden's move took away one tool in Russia's toolbox to prolong the war.

The war's not over. You don't know what China might do. Don't celebrate before you're in the end zone.

https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheNation/ ... 554958459/

This link doesn't change anything from our discussion. You lost me. I rebolded what I wrote for emphasis. China can't sneak stuff in without US intel finding out.

The question stands: is Xi willing to arm Russia overtly, and risk trade?

McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:16 pmYou've been wrong at every stage in our discussion of the threat of Russia, whether through propaganda and active measures campaigns, to military aggression, to predicting western, including European response...you've been wrong.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:03 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:52 pm ...because we discussed this before.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:34 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:17 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:09 pm ...you should have been really impressed with Biden with a point we discussed previously.

He declassified the intel that China was considering sending ammo to Russia...and even try and hide that they're doing it.... and sent that info. around the globe.

Really, really smart move. Tip of that hat to him, no?

If it works.

It already did work. How do you not see that? It was a smart thing to do, OS. He told the world that Xi was thinking about sneaking stuff in. That option has been removed by Biden.

Now Xi's only option is to overtly arm Russia, instead of sneaking it in and claiming "it wasn't us".

Call balls and strikes, OS. Biden's move took away one tool in Russia's toolbox to prolong the war.

The war's not over. You don't know what China might do. Don't celebrate before you're in the end zone.

https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheNation/ ... 554958459/

This link doesn't change anything from our discussion. You lost me. I rebolded what I wrote for emphasis. China can't sneak stuff in without US intel finding out.

The question stands: is Xi willing to arm Russia overtly, and risk trade?

McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:16 pmYou've been wrong at every stage in our discussion of the threat of Russia, whether through propaganda and active measures campaigns, to military aggression, to predicting western, including European response...you've been wrong.

How have I been wrong ? Specifically ?

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

It's all up to Biden. He's the judge and jury for this.

The punishment is to sanction China, with US Trade as the weapon.

Biden told Xi you can't do this clandestinely, we'll catch you. Biden doesn't have to offer proof to anyone. This isn't an international or NATO threat. It's a direct threat from the US.

If US hits Chinese imports in a material manner? It will hammer the Chinese economy. Xi may not care....certainly possible. But this isn't about Colin Powell showing up at the UN, "proving" something, unless Biden CHOOSES to do that.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:24 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

It's all up to Biden. He's the judge and jury for this.

The punishment is to sanction China, with US Trade as the weapon.

Biden told Xi you can't do this clandestinely, we'll catch you. Biden doesn't have to offer proof to anyone. This isn't an international or NATO threat. It's a direct threat from the US.

If US hits Chinese imports in a material manner? It will hammer the Chinese economy. Xi may not care....certainly possible. But this isn't about Colin Powell showing up at the UN, "proving" something, unless Biden CHOOSES to do that.

I slightly disagree with this. The European threat of sanctions is as important as ours. It's likely what Xi is most concerned about.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:24 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:14 pm McMaster's saying China can do it covertly, or at least make the US reveal sources &/or methods they don't want to.
Without proof, it's China's denial against our accusation.

It's all up to Biden. He's the judge and jury for this.

The punishment is to sanction China, with US Trade as the weapon.

Biden told Xi you can't do this clandestinely, we'll catch you. Biden doesn't have to offer proof to anyone. This isn't an international or NATO threat. It's a direct threat from the US.

If US hits Chinese imports in a material manner? It will hammer the Chinese economy. Xi may not care....certainly possible. But this isn't about Colin Powell showing up at the UN, "proving" something, unless Biden CHOOSES to do that.

I slightly disagree with this. The European threat of sanctions is as important as ours. It's likely what Xi is most concerned about.

There isn't an EU threat of sanctions that I'm aware of regarding Chinese arms to Russia. Only Biden has threatened China over this.

And even still, no, I disagree.....the big stick is the US trade.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:07 pm Mmm, no the EU is very much the biggest question mark for China. If they lose that market, as Russia has, by militarily arming Russia then it is a huge problem. They know this would be the case with the US but they could choose to sustain that, but EU too is a huge problem. And they have seen the EU act on behalf of Ukraine, despite prior dependence on Russian energy.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:20 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:16 pmYou've been wrong at every stage in our discussion of the threat of Russia, whether through propaganda and active measures campaigns, to military aggression, to predicting western, including European response...you've been wrong.

How have I been wrong ? Specifically ?

You denied that Russia had an active measures campaign to maximize partisan division and anger, to affect Western democracies, including to alter our 2016 election and to embed with the GOP, pooh poohing, at each stage these efforts and any effort to investigate and combat such. Wrong.

You have repeatedly pooh poohed the likelihood of Russian military aggression driven by imperialist ambitions, blaming American Dem leadership, Euroburghurs, NATO, for provoking aggression, inviting aggression, which you keep claiming would not stop if we just stopped provoking them...wrong, it's driven by imperialist ambitions.

You were wrong about the likelihood of Russia's military success in the early periods of the war (so were a lot of others) and you were wrong about the Ukrainians ability to push Russia back last summer and fall, regaining ground...and IMO you're wrong that this war is doomed to be stuck in trenches.

You have continuously claimed that the Europeans would not have the resolve to get off Russian energy, to decouple economically from Russia, to support Ukraine in their military fight, and to support and then maintain sanctions...you've been wrong about these predictions at each step, and there's no reason to think you'll be right about their resolve going forward.

You are frequently well informed about specific military systems, much better than most of us, and this is appreciated, but you've been wrong about the willingness to supply the Ukrainians with additional systems...

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:29 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:07 pm Mmm, no the EU is very much the biggest question mark for China. If they lose that market, as Russia has, by militarily arming Russia then it is a huge problem. They know this would be the case with the US but they could choose to sustain that, but EU too is a huge problem. And they have seen the EU act on behalf of Ukraine, despite prior dependence on Russian energy.

Understand all this. The EU has not made this threat. Joe Biden HAS made this threat.

What are the odds that the EU will pull together, and jointly severely sanction China if they arm Russia? Low.

What are the odds that Joe Biden can make that same call, all by himself, without having to get anyone else on board? 100%. If joe chooses sanctions? That's it. Boom, done.