Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What does this mean? Surely Russia would be expecting a big chunk of money to buy them out of all their hardware? It's my understanding that the primary ISS control modules are Russian, and thus all the of the ground-based hardware to control it is in Russia, correct? Just wondering how this would totally transition away from Russian involvement, or if they are expecting annual payments to "privatize" control of the ISS that NASA pays to a "private" company in Russia to control the station for them?
This article [inverse.com], from a month ago, goes into some of these details. It says that a US Cygnus NG-17 resupply ship was able to successfully boost the ISS's orbit, providing an alternative to the Russian Progress cargo ships that normally do it. A Russian module that can also be used for altitude control (they prefer not to use the actual module because it has limited fuel, so the cargo ships are normally used to raise the altitude).
The article also says Russia has talked about detaching their modules from the ISS as well. So more than likely Russia will demand the modules be purchased for large sums of money by the USA if they want to keep them on the ISS. One also wonders if it is possible to totally remove Russian control of those modules in that case, to prevent any kind of sabotage or other damage to the ISS.
The article also says Russia has talked about detaching their modules from the ISS as well. So more than likely Russia will demand the modules be purchased for large sums of money by the USA if they want to keep them on the ISS. One also wonders if it is possible to totally remove Russian control of those modules in that case, to prevent any kind of sabotage or other damage to the ISS.
The article also says Russia has talked about detaching their modules from the ISS as well. So more than likely Russia will demand the modules be purchased for large sums of money by the USA if they want to keep them on the ISS. One also wonders if it is possible to totally remove Russian control of those modules in that case, to prevent any kind of sabotage or other damage to the ISS.
Alternatively, the remaining ISS partners could charge Russia for valet parking...
Oh my God! Tramapoline! Trampopoline! [nbcnews.com]
Oh my God! Tramapoline! Trampopoline! [nbcnews.com]
That is an actual quote, with citation, treated with all the loving kindness it deserves. Might be better even than the timeless "Where are my engines, Jeff?" [google.com]
And if we don't pay, do they plan to send a repo man?
Including the people inside? I have a hunch that might upset a few countries a bit more than the trivial little bickering that's currently going on in Ukraine.
What does this mean? Surely Russia would be expecting a big chunk of money to buy them out of all their hardware
What does this mean? Surely Russia would be expecting a big chunk of money to buy them out of all their hardware
That's probably what they're hoping for, but it's not going to happen. Not unless they vacate Ukraine completely, including the occupied breakaway territories.
It's my understanding that the primary ISS control modules are Russian, and thus all the of the ground-based hardware to control it is in Russia, correct?
It's my understanding that the primary ISS control modules are Russian, and thus all the of the ground-based hardware to control it is in Russia, correct?
No. The original primary ISS control module was designed by Russia and is part of the Russian orbital segment, but is owned by the United States. We paid for it, so Russia doesn't have the right to take it when they leave. Between that and boosting by U.S. spacecraft when docked, it should be possible to keep ISS going for six more years even if Russia takes all the modules that they own and goes home.
Of course, the Russian modules are in a bad state of disrepair, so they probably will not use them as part of a new space station, so Russia taking the modules and going home would be purely an act of childish spite. But I wouldn't put it past Russia to act that way, given their recent behavior.
We paid for it, so Russia doesn't have the right to take it when they leave.
Oh, well then, I'm sure that'll stop them. Russia has never been one to take things that don't belong to them.
Since it is known that Russian modules are not in good repair, I think even if Russia offers to let them stay plugged in to ISS, NASA should refuse and discard them. Nasa presumably will not know as much about those modules as Roscosmos, and NASA may not even be able to get spare parts for repairs or maintenance easily, especially if Russia is still mucking around in Ukraine.
So as well make a clean break.
NASA may not even be able to get spare parts for repairs or maintenance easily, especially if Russia is still mucking around in Ukraine.
NASA may not even be able to get spare parts for repairs or maintenance easily, especially if Russia is still mucking around in Ukraine.
A lot of components for aircraft and spacecraft were manufactured in Ukraine. The factories might be bombed out but Ukraine might turn over the designs to NASA. They might also have designs for components they did not manufacture but had to interoperate with.
I am not sure Putin's head will be on spike if Russia loses to Ukraine. He controls the state Gestapo organizations. Any members of the public that get out of line will be shipped off the to Gulag. Any internal opposition can be more easily silenced as Putin has done with previous critics.
The only thing that might topple him is if the military gangs up on him and has decided he's just too stupid to remain, but then Putin will have no problem ferreting out an insurrection is in the offing and off the leaders.
Authoritarians are very easy to be welcomed into power, but they then corrupt the state to keep them in power. In Russia's case, the endemic corruption left over from Soviet times was merely waiting for a new head bozo.
You are assuming some younger ambitious neo-Putin in the state Gestapo organizations doesn't sense weakness after such a humiliating defeat and make a move. After all, strong-man tin pot dictators are always looking over their shoulder for the next strong-man tin pot dictator-wannabe to try to show he's a stronger-man tin pot dictator.
Or, in actual reality, Ukraine will continue receiving HMARS systems from the US and its allies, and continue pushing Russia back because they have no answer. Right now, Russian forces are being very careful to stay outside of Ukraine's current HMARS range of ~50 miles and have reportedly made HMARS units the highest priority targets because they're getting fucking owned by them. The funny thing is that with a change of rockets, that range becomes ~140 miles; and Ukraine has already requested those munitions and it's being discussed.
Getting back to the topic at hand - the ISS - if Russia can't even maintain the equipment they are planning to start a war with in a neighboring country, how the fuck do they expect to build and maintain their own modern space station on their own? I suppose they could partner with China, as China has been frozen out of the ISS; however I wouldn't be surprised to see that policy change just to fuck Russia over.
When making something in quantity, such as concrete, tanks, or other military items, it's easy to falsify quality and quantity. Mix a little more aggregate into the concrete and nobody wil
What does this mean? Surely Russia would be expecting a big chunk of money to buy them out of all their hardware? It's my understanding that the primary ISS control modules are Russian...
What does this mean? Surely Russia would be expecting a big chunk of money to buy them out of all their hardware? It's my understanding that the primary ISS control modules are Russian...
When Elon buys it, he will have this figured out.
Apparently there's a live recording of NASA's reply to the Russian announcement here. [youtube.com]
It's their new Australian variant.
Where are they going to get the money to build their own? I hear that lately, they are running short on cash and have additional domestic expenses.
China is building its own. They won't want to waste money on a separate one for Russia, and I think would be leery about adding Russian modules to the Chinese station.
China may agree to Russia joining them in their space station, maybe even building some modules and sticking some Russia stickers on them for publicity.
In exchange for Russian expertise in many things. From jet engines to rockets to so many other stuff that China is having difficulty stealing or reverse engineering.
Question is, will Russia be desperate or stupid enough to teach China everything for a space station and then realise 10 years later China does not need them anymore (maybe except as a resource s
Why exactly would China chain itself onto this sinking oil tanker? If anything, they'll treat it like we treat former colonies, as a cheap source of resources, but otherwise, Russia is of little use for China.
If this is anything to go by the war is costing Russia nearly $1 billion a day. That is unsustainable. https://www.newsweek.com/russi... [newsweek.com]
Let's be blunt. They can't fight this war forever, and they would have had a tough time building a space station before the war, but after the war, their economy is going to be completely tanked for years, so they won't be building a space station then. And with the US again becoming self-reliant as far as rocket capacity goes, they don't even have that to hold over the US's head.
The ISS is getting pretty damned old as it is, and it's likely that if Russia pulls out, the US will probably seek to deorbit it. The US has bigger goals (ostensibly, at least) and whatever value there is in ISS by this point has already been gained. I guess the big fight would be if Russia refuses to allow the ISS to be deorbited, at which point, I guess you send up astronauts with wrenches and detach the US modules and tell Moscow "good luck".
I don't know that you can be sure that the economy tanking will prevent them from building a space station. When you have very little regard for the personal state of our population, and you are under no pressures to prioritize in favour of anybody's agenda but your own, it might be perfectly doable.
I think Putin was pushing for Roscosmos to be a shining star of Russia, until he found out that Roscosmos is a husk with everything of worth already looted.
At least thats the rumour I remember reading some years ago. So even if he tries to prioritize Roscosmos, and build a space station or new rockets, they may already lack the tools or the relevant people.
You can't just design and build a space station without decent resources and alot of smart people. And even if you pour alot of resources into it, witho
after the war, their economy is going to be completely tanked for years
after the war, their economy is going to be completely tanked for years
I'm not so sure. I mean, do we really know where Russia's money is and how much of it there is? All of those oligarchs we're always hearing about are oligarchs at Putin's pleasure. If he decides he'd like to have all of that money back now, he can probably have it.
Compared to most of us the oligarchs and Putin are fabulously wealthy. But compared to the wealthiest Americans, they are pretty insignificant. And if the $1 billion a day on their war is accurate, the money putin and the oligarchs has isn't going to last long.
They can't fight this war forever
They can't fight this war forever
They aren't fighting a war,... technically. It is worth remembering that Russia's military presence in the Ukraine is still restricted to what they pretend is a "special military operation". This is relevant because while Russia's losses are mounting, they haven't even remotely dedicated their entire resources to "fighting a war" and they absolutely can drag this out for a long frigging time at the rate they are going.
I kind of hope they accidentally bomb a NATO target and actually do end up in an all out w
Russia doesn't have enough basic supplies and equi
Where are they going to get the money to build their own? I hear that lately, they are running short on cash and have additional domestic expenses.
Where are they going to get the money to build their own? I hear that lately, they are running short on cash and have additional domestic expenses.
Russia says/does things that aren't really based in reality so this may be more wishful thinking than anything else. I suspect that the Russian economy isn't quite as bad as some claim, but it's also probably not as great as Putin and his cronies claim. We know that Putin gets told what he wants to hear, so he probably believes that by the end of this year Russia will be in total control of a totally destroyed Ukraine and he also is probably being told that the sanctions are absolutely destroying the countries that are imposing them and the second the war is over they will end those sanctions and things will return to as they were in the past. So Putin may delusionally believe he is perhaps 6 months away from things going to back to normal and in such a case Russia will have the money because gasoline prices can only go up forever (I have no doubt Putin believes this) so Russia is just a little bit away from having more money than they know what to do with.
Putin used to remind me of Peter the Great or Alexander I. He's now beginning to remind me more of Nicholas II.
Maybe there was a Stalin period in the middle, but this is waxing more towards the dying days of the Romanovs.
More like if Beria had deposed Stalin.
Putin has always styled himself as a Peter the Great. In fact he referred to himself in that vein in a speech a while back, talking about the greatness of Russia and how he intends to bring back the empire. And if it was all that great and he was that great, the former soviet states would be demanding to come back in and be a part of it. Judging by how quickly many of them are now turning to the EU and NATO, I don't think Putin will have much success in this. Militarily he can conquer them all, but then
Oil and gas. They have to sell at a bit of a discount but it's all still getting sold so they actually have a ton of cash, they just can't spend it to buy the high-tech stuff since it's sanctioned.
Where are they going to get the money to build their own? I hear that lately, they are running short on cash and have additional domestic expenses.
I wonder if maybe they can't even afford to continue with the ISS and this announcement is about giving them cover to cancel future ISS missions because "why invest in a dead end when something great is on the way." Then then they can hide their weakness (the inability to maintain half a space-station) behind a facade of Russian greatness. ("We don't need any pa
And vodka. You know what? Forget the space station. And the blackjack!
If they're having to glue plastic water bottles to drones for fuel tanks, I can't imagine what a space station built under the current sanctions would look like...
Just build a direct copy of MIR?
Ever see one of those travel trailers that have been built onto?
Ever see one of those travel trailers that have been built onto?
Those slideouts are going to leak air.
Maybe it will look like one of those bulbous Airstream home-on-wheels.
If plastic water bottles are usable for a semi-disposable drone, and they cost less, it's better to use them. No government should be spending money on things it doesn't need just to be fancy.
If plastic water bottles are usable for a semi-disposable drone, and they cost less, it's better to use them. No government should be spending money on things it doesn't need just to be fancy.
They're lightweight, they're cheap, they're readily available, where's the problem?
Sure it could be propaganda that Russian drones are cheaply constructed with plastic bottles but that does not seem that far from what is known about the Russian military. From available evidence of captured and destroyed Russian tanks in Ukraine, Russia military hardware has a duality. In public parades, the best and most advanced equipment like tanks is out on display for show. In actuality, some equipment could be 50 years old and badly maintained is what most the military has available.
It's much more likely that expensive storage, inspections, and maintenance was forgone. I'm not saying they're not corrupt, I'm saying that's an unlikely avenue for the corruption. It's way too complicated to replace parts with inferior ones.
It's much more likely that expensive storage, inspections, and maintenance was forgone. I'm not saying they're not corrupt, I'm saying that's an unlikely avenue for the corruption. It's way too complicated to replace parts with inferior ones.
Why is that "more likely"? When we are talking about storage of military equipment like trucks, they do not send them to air conditioned warehouses. They are normally kept outdoors and, if lucky, kept on payment instead of grass. That is not expensive storage. As for expensive maintenance and inspection, for tires that meant visually inspection of the tires, maybe a reading of the tire pressure, and moving the truck a few feet forward or backward occasionally.
Because I'd be pretty amazed if they could actually build their own spaces station nowadays.
AFAIK, the control modules' ability to stabilize the station is autonomous. So presumably as long as they can shut that down from onboard the station while they boost the orbit so that it doesn't fight the boost, they shouldn't need Russian ground control. And maybe not even then. I'm not sure if the station has any engines pointed that direction.
The Russian participation in the ISS has been pretty tenuous since SpaceX filled the gap left by the Space shuttle in terms of access to the space station. Their actual modules have proven problematic to the point they've endangered the station's safety. Russia is no longer needed, and geopolitical tensions mean keeping them around is difficult. There's a strong whiff of "you can't fire me, I quit!" to the idea that they don't want to be part of the ISS. We don't really need/want them there anymore.
As for launching their "own" space station... I will believe it when I see it. They haven't built a space station since the Soviet Union was around and they have been running the same basic space capsule since the late 1960s. Even a best case outcome for Russia against Ukraine leaves the state hundreds of billions of dollars poorer. Alternative launch providers like Space X means the space program is going to have limited commercial satellite revenue. There's no reason for them to have a manned space program at all beyond vanity, and I am skeptical that the Russian state is going to be able to afford vanity, especially if the Ukrainian war has a worst case outcome for Russia (collapse of the Regime after a complete military loss).
The question I have is this: If Russia does manage to put up a space station of their own; should the rest of the space community have plans to be able to rescue people from said station, if there is a failure, and vice versa? Currently everything is self-rescue, as a community. But if there is a split, do we revert to the laws of the sea and have to respond to maydays?
I think it would come down to the specific facts and circumstances if that ever came to pass. There's never been a real case of an astronaut crew in distress in outer space where there was any possibility of a third party to come rescue. During past incidents, like Apollo 13, the Russians wouldn't have had the technical capacity to help even had they wanted to. Likewise, in Russian accidents like Soyuz 11, there was no possibility of rescue (that one was a sudden decompression).
A rescue of a Russian space c
I think the U.S. might be willing to do it, but it would require systems compatibility/availability that might or may not be there.
I think the U.S. might be willing to do it, but it would require systems compatibility/availability that might or may not be there.
China could probably do it. Some of their craft use Russia's docking system.
Then again, there's nothing stopping Russia from building their new station based on the IDSS docking system that everybody else is using, either, so this is all speculation until such a space station actually exists (even in the planning stages).
If a vessel is in distress at sea, any ship nearby that can help will. It doesn't matter if it's an "enemy" ship or not, if the two nations are not actively at war. Because, you'd want them to do the same, and they probably would.
I think the space programs view themselves the same way. If a Russian space crew gets into trouble in space and there is a chance to launch and rescue them, the US or ESA programs probably would. The problem is, as others have pointed out, gearing up for a space flight takes months
You are lost way down in the details. The biggest obstacle is compatible orbits. Changing orbital inclination requires a lot of energy that manned vehicles simply don't have. Changing orbital parameters in any way takes a combination of energy and time (and reducing one greatly increases the other).
The Russian modules have many of the vital systems and cannot be operated by NASA/ESA.
This is likely to be the end of the ISS. Even if NASA/ESA could keep it flying, it will cost too much.
Even the current plan is to de-orbit the ISS in 2031. Regardless of Russia, it's likely on the final 1/3 of its lifespan. New launch vehicles like the SLS and Starship means that a next generation space station would be a lot easier to get into orbit than the current ISS.
So far, SLS has only shown it's great capacity to incinerate money.
Starship has performed a parlor trick landing, but mostly just explodes.
I'm certain that there's a good future for Starship at some point, but SLS is a dead end, costing 10-figures every time it launches.
Russia is running a real life experiment, and the results will be important for years to come.
They are actively distancing themselves from the civilized world. This not only includes ISS detachment, but that on the surface as well. Their economy is sanctioned, yes, but they do more "self sanctions". They shut off many Internet services, and those who try to stay, they enact huge fines. They disrupt collaboration even with India and China, and only North Korea is left as their peer.
And even if they wanted to stay in ISS, I think they would be unable to do so. Without the ability to procure modern microchips and other components, they cannot even install ABS or airbags on their LADA vehicles anymore: https://www.motor1.com/news/59... [motor1.com]
Are you minimizing their microelectronics technology?
You better be. They need all the help they can get.
Russia has played a game of peek-a-boo with the West since the Napoleonic Wars, when Alexander I was first an ally of Britain and Prussia, and then an ally of Napoleon, and then an ally of Britain and Prussia again. It's foreign policy, whether Czarist, Bolshevik or Putinite, has always been equal parts self-interest and pique, with a healthy dose of self-mythologizing. And it's always come down to the notion of Panslavism, of the Muscovite Princes, by whatever name they call themselves, believing themselve
"most of the world has moved on to enjoy a more cosmopolitian, integrated and participatory role." as long as you ignore the America First crowd. If they ever got their dream state, it would be poor and they'd be blaming the rest of the world for doing it to them, and then they'd use the "foreign enemy" in a bid to remain in power.
Let this be a warning to all of us. Russia had all the advantages you could have. Rich resources. Indestructible technology. A well educated workforce. Neither over- nor underpopulation.
All that can be nixed by incapable leadership and utterly corrupt industry leaders.
Would that people learn from this. Economists like to blabber about natural resources, but Russia (and Brazil even more so, with a size, population, and natural resources all on par with the US), drag along with sick economies, due to corruption from top to bottom.
Economists deliberately ignore politics, and more directly, economic freedom, because politicians squawk of command and control, not leaving people to be free to satisfy each others' needs and wants.
People noted the parallels between Brazil and
How's the weather in St Petersburg?
It is important to have a sense of proportion. The "items" you list are inconsequential except in the fevered dreams of right wing groundnuts.
By population? Yeah, but then again, how much does the average Indian deliver?
By GDP, i.e. by what actually matters in international trade? Erh... yeah ... I see why you prefer to say "by population".
Last update from the flight: All systems operational, boiler-men on duty!
All that cooperation nonsense did was assist the Russian military and everyone who advocated on the Western side was either naive or a sellout because Russia is an enemy society, not a society with an enemy government.
Naive people should not be making important decisions. Space tech is war tech and the US should hoard it not give it to genocidal murderers whose favored sport is killing, deporting and otherwise oppressing Ukrainians.
Science is not the most important human activity.
When the deal to build the ISS was first struck, Putin was nowhere in sight, and the US was putting considerable effort into helping Russia get out of the severe economic crash in the immediate post-Soviet years. It was a good will gesture, and one that might have led to a better outcome if things had gone differently. But the US, like all the other nations before it that imagined they had struck deals with Russia, was taken for a ride. And let's not forget that cooperation via ISS allowed the US to transit
100 years ago you might have said the same about Germany.
Russia's problem, much like the one Germany had a century ago, is that there is no history of democracy and (Western) freedom. None. Until 1919, Russia was the most backwards and most oppressive monarchy in Europe, which would have been better categorized as despotism. Even back then, even with the other absolutist monarchs, Russia was seen as an anachronism from a time that was long past where kings ruled who treat their subjects as property.
That was replaced by another dictatorship that lasted until 1990. And then suddenly there was Freedom. With a capital F. Ok, let's again call it what it really was: Anarchy. Yeah, there was something akin to a government, but there were essentially no rules. People did what they wanted and the police was INSANELY corrupt. Allow me to illustrate with a joke:
Our Traffic Inspection Department held a contest. The third prize is a case of vodka. The second prize is 100 roubles and a ticket to the Olympics. The first prize is a portable stop sign (insinuating that they can put it up wherever they want and just keep milking passing cars, and that's also what really happened).
Can you imagine that people who experienced dictatorship and the chaos of anarchy would rather go back to a dictatorship? They equate "freedom" with anarchy, and the freedom of the mob to rule. Because that's the only freedom they ever experienced.
I do still have hope for the Russian people, simply because, well, people are people. Get rid of the kleptocracy and the tinpot dictators and let them find out how democracy really works. Even though I'd be hard pressed to find someone to teach them, we sure don't have that kind of people ourselves anymore.
Let's just say what really goes on. Russia is fucking broke and tries to cut back on expenses wherever it can. Build their own space station? Yeah, sure, we'll buy that.
This is all posturing. They're discontinuing their "cooperation" on the ISS because they can't afford to spend any more money on it; their favorite suckers have almost entirely stopped siphoning funds into Russia's coffers due to their war on Ukraine. And there is no chance at all that they will ever fly their own station into orbit, as that's even more expensive.
Likely, the ISS hardware will continue to orbit exactly as it is; Russia also can't afford to claim anything of particular value that's presently onboard, (outside of their cosmonauts) so the modules (with whatever claim that Russia can make to them) will stay right where they are until the other stakeholders finally decides to deorbit the entire station. Frankly, those modules wouldn't be worth repurposing in any event... and any attempts by Russia to extract payment for them -- and likewise any response of any kind from the other world governments investing in the ISS -- would be entirely political theater. I mean, what are they going to do -- threaten to send up the repo man, at a cost of more than the modules are now worth?
All of that said... I can easily see a future in which a Russian cosmonaut returns to the ISS after 2024. Likely they'll get there via a US government funded seat on a SpaceX rocket. That scenario will take place after international relations with Russia have finally started to be meaningfully patched up, which means Russia will have to make some allusions to abandoning their war machine (so, not any time soon) ... and of course, it will also be entirely political theater.
China is providing that. They're building a multi-module space station right now, and while it's still early in the concepts, they could use the same techniques to build an ISS-style station.
Well, in strict terms, if the goal was taking Ukraine entire, they certainly have lost it. But it also seems unlikely Ukraine, even with Western help, can oust them from eastern Ukraine. At that point, it's quite possible NATO is simply hoping Ukraine fights Russia into a stalemate that continues to bleed the Russian treasury over the long term, as Europe tries to make the transition away from Russian gas (a pretty tall order at this point, as there's precious little spare capacity in North America at the moment).
As horrible as it sounds, there is enormous strategic value in having an enemy bogged down in an endless war of attrition, as blood and coin pour out of the country. And Russia has been here before; in Afghanistan, but even before that during WWI, when Germany started helping out Lenin and the Bolsheviks, hoping to create significant disorder in Russia. It worked beyond Germany's wildest dreams, freeing up troops from the Eastern Front, although it did come too late to prevent the revolution in Germany that toppled the German Empire.
There's also the propaganda value. For years Russia has loomed rather large, and its involvement in Syria on the side of Assad made folks believe that the Great Bear was again capable of some degree of force projection far beyond its borders. But the fact that Ukraine, with a population 1/3 the size of Russia, with significant Western help, actually turned back the Russian drive to Kiev, and has now locked Russia into the east (save for the odd pointless missile strike) demonstrates what some always knew, that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not have the economic and industrial capacity that the Warsaw Pact provided. In some ways the government itself is weaker and less effective. The old Communist government was many things terrible and inept, but it could be startling effective in ways that a one man show can never be.
Russia still has the nukes, but they're the kind of weapon you can never really use, because even a fairly low yield device used to try to soften Ukraine's resistance would likely lead to a parting of the ways with Russia's few useful allies, not to mention forcing NATO to become far more proactive. It would scare Europe into taking the massive economic hit of an absolute loss of Russian energy as a consequence, leaving Russia isolated for decades, with even Beijing no longer taking the Kremlin's calls.
There was an article in last weekend's (I think) Wall Street Journal about how the Russkies are re-evaluating their nuclear posture with respect to their now known weak military. They figure, to hear them tell it, that they can rely upon low yield nukes to even the score with NATO, which they are sure will be attacking at some point. They figure nukes can save the state, by that I interpret them to mean nukes can save the rotting carcass of Soviet corruption running the joint.
In my opinion, I think their co
with even Beijing no longer taking the Kremlin's calls.
with even Beijing no longer taking the Kremlin's calls.
I'd like to believe that but Beijing will do anything that's in Beijing's interests regardless of the human cost. If Russia uses a low-yield nuclear device in Ukraine you will the Chinese "urge calm" while they continue to gorge on Russian oil.
It would have nothing to do with any humanitarian concerns, but rather with the potential for destablization and like-for-like arms build up that would mean China would have to divert resources, which would in turn spook India and Pakistan. Basically we're at a pivot point that may end up being not unlike the post-Franco-Prussian War period, when Europe entered an arms race. Russia may have abandoned the long-term view, but Beijing has not.
The shape and pace of this war is governed by a two facts: (1) Russian logistics get exponentially harder the further from the nearest railhead they advance, but equivalently they get exponentially *easier* as Russia withdraws towards its railheads. (2) The Russian military is too slow and uncoordinated to defeat a determined and prepared enemy with some kind of lightning maneuver warfare; it relies on transporting mountains of crappy, old, but still-lethal shit to make and sustain advances.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Shopify To Lay Off 10% of Workers in Broad Shake-Up
Rocket Debris From China Space Station Mission To Crash Land -- And No One Knows Where
... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks