Russia invades Ukraine

[Bletchleyite]

Taiwan makes about 27m% of the worlds semi conductors. Losing that is a big problem. Our society relies on these things.

Is it our war then?

Why would we lose it? China would sell them to us and the world just the same if they did take it over.

 

[Tester]

Why would we lose it? China would sell them to us and the world just the same if they did take it over.

My understanding is that the manufacturing facilities are mined, and will be destroyed on invasion.

Could be bluff of course - happy to take the chance?

 

[DarloRich]

. . .On a slight side–issue, why is it that these despots and dictators like Trump, Putin, Xi, Kim Wrong–Un, Netenyahu, whoever is in charge of Iran, Syria, etc., etc., seem to have a charmed life with never any strokes, serious illnesses, sudden deaths, etc?

. . .Does the "Devil really look after his own" as it were?

The evil always last for ages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

Why would we lose it? China would sell them to us and the world just the same if they did take it over.

Taiwan is small island. I am sure that in the event of attack facilities of use to the enemy would be destroyed or damaged

That would be a big problem

My understanding is that the manufacturing facilities are mined, and will be destroyed on invasion.

Could be bluff of course - happy to take the chance?

Or destroyed in the fighting

 

[Bletchleyite]

The evil always last for ages.

I guess if you're the supreme leader you get the very best healthcare!

 

[Annetts key]

. . .On a slight side–issue, why is it that these despots and dictators like Trump, Putin, Xi, Kim Wrong–Un, Netenyahu, whoever is in charge of Iran, Syria, etc., etc., seem to have a charmed life with never any strokes, serious illnesses, sudden deaths, etc?

. . .Does the "Devil really look after his own" as it were?

How do you know that they "have a charmed life with never any strokes, serious illnesses"...???
Who is going to tell the world that they are riddled with disease but everything is being done to cover it up? From being pumped up with drugs to make up or plastic surgery...

Just look at Putin, you never know which double you are going to get. Because it's very likely the real one never goes out in public, let alone fly abroad...

 

[edwin_m]

. . .On a slight side–issue, why is it that these despots and dictators like Trump, Putin, Xi, Kim Wrong–Un, Netenyahu, whoever is in charge of Iran, Syria, etc., etc., seem to have a charmed life with never any strokes, serious illnesses, sudden deaths, etc?

. . .Does the "Devil really look after his own" as it were?

Didn't work out for Stalin.

 

[najaB]

Not one we need to take on militarily, not least because that war is unwinnable due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

Disagree. The likelihood of Russia deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine is close enough to zero as to be ignored. The likelihood of them using them against any NATO member even less so.

 

[35B]

The President and his advisors, maybe, but that would be fatally unpopular with the majority of US citizens.

Would it? I’d not care to take that bet myself

 

[RailWonderer]

Thats where Russia has really messed up, When the USSR collapsed, Had Russia, not elected a drunk, then a KGB officer, and actually modernised in a way that made life better, and not just for the criminal elite, then I think normal Russians would be living better lives, have more freedoms to travel, and not wanted to emigrate, the natural wealth, would have made Russia a rich country, and its populations could have had living standards that matched the west, across all of Russia, not just in the bits with the most populations,

Russia created a system of state capitalism not unlike China once Putin cemented political control and pressure over the oligarchs. No western country helped guide Russia to democracy the way Japan and South Korea were helped after WWII by General Douglas MacArthur.

The west always saw Russia as an enemy it didn’t want to help and they laughed at Boris Yeltsin and took advantage of his good faith, and by doing do the west created the adversary it always needed and wanted.

Many Russians still do travel to Europe and don’t see it as particularly better. Salaries and living costs are lower in Russia and they have to save up to travel but Russians have lower standards and demands than Europeans. Russians believe their nation’s duty is to defy and stand up to the west and to be independent of it, it’s a key part of Russian identity. That’s not to say Russians back invading other countries - many don’t, excepting Crimea because of the 1950s handover - but they don’t want to be western aligned.

Russia won’t ever be like the west because Russians don’t want to westernise, as confusing as this might sound to people from the west.

 

[yorkie]

... Russians don’t want to westernise...

All Russians?

Also, how do you define "westernise"?

as confusing as this might sound to people from the west.

Where are you from?

 

[RailWonderer]

All Russians?

Also, how do you define "westernise"?

Where are you from?

I’m British and have spoken to Russians and watched the street interviews, many of them. By westernise, I mean Russians don’t want to be aligned to the EU, NATO, and western policy aims. Russia has always been an independent power, if it joined the western fold it would lose number one standing in the bloc to the US, which people wouldn’t accept. It would be the equivalent of absorbing the UK or Canada as the 51st state of America.

 

[35B]

I’m British and have spoken to Russians and watched the street interviews, many of them. By westernise, I mean Russians don’t want to be aligned to the EU, NATO, and western policy aims. Russia has always been an independent power, if it joined the western fold it would lose number one standing in the bloc to the US, which people wouldn’t accept. It would be the equivalent of absorbing the UK or Canada as the 51st state of America.

I think you overstate both the consequences of joining a western bloc, and of Russian public opinion. I also disagree that Russia can only retain it’s status by defining itself in opposition to the west.

 

[Annetts key]

I’m British and have spoken to Russians and watched the street interviews, many of them. By westernise, I mean Russians don’t want to be aligned to the EU, NATO, and western policy aims. Russia has always been an independent power, if it joined the western fold it would lose number one standing in the bloc to the US, which people wouldn’t accept. It would be the equivalent of absorbing the UK or Canada as the 51st state of America.

Funny how well off Russians love visiting other countries. Some even stay in the West. Funny how many spend their money on Western products and technology. Well, before Putin upset the apple cart by starting his SMO and many Western companies withdrew from Russia.

Russia is far from being a "number one" standing in the world. It's economy is far behind that of the U.S.A. even with gas and oil exports. As it is, the costs of the war and the corruption and mismanagement along with the falling income from the gas and oil exports are causing their economy to tank. Without those gas and oil exports, it would be significantly worse off. And as the world is gradually moving to other energy sources, the long term is for prices of gas and oil to fall. As it is, thanks to Trump, a worldwide recession is likely and the threat of that along, with some of the Arab countries having got fed up with Russia not sticking to the agreed amount of oil exports and hence pumping more oil, are causing worldwide oil prices to fall.

And in terms of military power, well, the whole world is watching Russia struggle against a smaller county, one that started off with similar former Soviet equipment. Apart from the very small number of friends, who will now buy Russian military equipment? Very few after seeing how badly said equipment performed in Russian hands in a real conflict.

Under Putin, Russia is getting weaker by the day. And then there is the population demographic problem. Russians are not having enough children to sustain the population.

So no matter how you look at it, the living standards in Russia will be getting worse. And outside of the big cities, it's not particularly good now.

 

[DustyBin]

I think you overstate both the consequences of joining a western bloc, and of Russian public opinion. I also disagree that Russia can only retain it’s status by defining itself in opposition to the west.

This is the narrative put out by the Putin regime, so to be fair to @RailWonderer there will be a significant number of Russians, mostly from rural areas, who feel this way. It’s nonsense of course, but they don’t know any better; think of it as “perpetual war” in action (a la Nineteen Eighty-Four).

 

[najaB]

Russia is far from being a "number one" standing in the world. It's economy is far behind that of the U.S.A. even with gas and oil exports.

It's not even top ten.

 

[Belperpete]

Thats where Russia has really messed up, When the USSR collapsed, Had Russia, not elected a drunk, then a KGB officer, and actually modernised in a way that made life better, and not just for the criminal elite, then I think normal Russians would be living better lives, have more freedoms to travel, and not wanted to emigrate, the natural wealth, would have made Russia a rich country, and its populations could have had living standards that matched the west, across all of Russia, not just in the bits with the most populations,

I think that most Russians' attitude to western style democracy and economics is one of once bitten, twice shy. They have tried it, and it didn't go well.

It all went wrong under Gorbachev and his policies of glasnost and perestroika. Initially I recall most Russians were keen to Westernise, young Russians in particular. Anything Western was flavour of the month, and the queues for the first McDonalds were incredible.

However, when the brakes were taken off an economy that had always relied on backhanders and corruption to get things done, the corruption also went unbraked. Plus, old and inefficient industries that had survived because of state control of the economy started dropping like flies. As ordinary people started losing their jobs en masse, prices rose to unprecedented levels, and corruption spiralled, disillusionment rapidly set in. Combined with the cuts to the armed forces, that is what led to the coup and the fall of Gorbachev, after which Yeltsin took over.

Yeltsin tried to tread a middle path, but in reality the damage had already been done and Yeltsin was powerless to undo it. He was always looking over his shoulder at the possibility of another coup. It was the backlash against the botched Westernisation, and the loss of Russian prestige with the breakup of the USSR, that led to Putin's rise. He effectively promised to Make Russia Great Again, and that has been his idealogy all along.

The West is not blameless in this. The US in particular pushed hard for these reforms to happen as quickly as possible, and with as little regulation as possible, as they saw big profits to be made from the opening up of this new Russian free market. Putin has therefore been able to blame the West for what happened, further stoking disillusionment with the West.

 

[35B]

I think that most Russians' attitude to western style democracy and economics is one of once bitten, twice shy. They have tried it, and it didn't go well.

It all went wrong under Gorbachev and his policies of glasnost and perestroika. Initially I recall most Russians were keen to Westernise, young Russians in particular. Anything Western was flavour of the month, and the queues for the first McDonalds were incredible.

However, when the brakes were taken off an economy that had always relied on backhanders and corruption to get things done, the corruption also went unbraked. Plus, old and inefficient industries that had survived because of state control of the economy started dropping like flies. As ordinary people started losing their jobs en masse, prices rose to unprecedented levels, and corruption spiralled, disillusionment rapidly set in. Combined with the cuts to the armed forces, that is what led to the coup and the fall of Gorbachev, after which Yeltsin took over.

Yeltsin tried to tread a middle path, but in reality the damage had already been done and Yeltsin was powerless to undo it. He was always looking over his shoulder at the possibility of another coup. It was the backlash against the botched Westernisation, and the loss of Russian prestige with the breakup of the USSR, that led to Putin's rise. He effectively promised to Make Russia Great Again, and that has been his idealogy all along.

The West is not blameless in this. The US in particular pushed hard for these reforms to happen as quickly as possible, and with as little regulation as possible, as they saw big profits to be made from the opening up of this new Russian free market. Putin has therefore been able to blame the West for what happened, further stoking disillusionment with the West.

Can I suggest that, 90 years ago, we could have been having precisely the same conversation about Germany. Yet Germany has developed into a robust and mature democracy.

That an autocrat took control after the chaos of the Yeltsin period makes sense, as described. But it wasn’t inevitable, and the desire of Russians (insofar as they had a serious choice) for stability shouldn’t be extrapolated into an opposition to “westernisation”.

 

[RailWonderer]

Can I suggest that, 90 years ago, we could have been having precisely the same conversation about Germany. Yet Germany has developed into a robust and mature democracy.

Only after a genocide and tens of millions dead in a total war which wiped out the entire European continent. Then western occupation helped prevent democratic back sliding.

That an autocrat took control after the chaos of the Yeltsin period makes sense, as described. But it wasn’t inevitable, and the desire of Russians (insofar as they had a serious choice) for stability shouldn’t be extrapolated into an opposition to “westernisation”.

It was inevitable to me, as the main alternatives were a return to socialism under Gennady Zyuganov who won 40% of votes in 1996, or the ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovksy (look him up, he said some hilarious and terrifying things) far behind that. Liberal democratic parties never won more than 10% of votes in 1996 and 2004.

But if westernisation was the cause for instability, wouldn’t they want to vote against it?

 

[Annetts key]

I think that most Russians' attitude to western style democracy and economics is one of once bitten, twice shy. They have tried it, and it didn't go well.

It all went wrong under Gorbachev and his policies of glasnost and perestroika. Initially I recall most Russians were keen to Westernise, young Russians in particular. Anything Western was flavour of the month, and the queues for the first McDonalds were incredible.

However, when the brakes were taken off an economy that had always relied on backhanders and corruption to get things done, the corruption also went unbraked. Plus, old and inefficient industries that had survived because of state control of the economy started dropping like flies. As ordinary people started losing their jobs en masse, prices rose to unprecedented levels, and corruption spiralled, disillusionment rapidly set in. Combined with the cuts to the armed forces, that is what led to the coup and the fall of Gorbachev, after which Yeltsin took over.

Yeltsin tried to tread a middle path, but in reality the damage had already been done and Yeltsin was powerless to undo it. He was always looking over his shoulder at the possibility of another coup. It was the backlash against the botched Westernisation, and the loss of Russian prestige with the breakup of the USSR, that led to Putin's rise. He effectively promised to Make Russia Great Again, and that has been his idealogy all along.

The West is not blameless in this. The US in particular pushed hard for these reforms to happen as quickly as possible, and with as little regulation as possible, as they saw big profits to be made from the opening up of this new Russian free market. Putin has therefore been able to blame the West for what happened, further stoking disillusionment with the West.

Under Putin, Russia is now turning even more towards a state controlled economy. As more and more “private” industries are getting into so much debt that without state intervention, they are becoming or will become insolvent.

There were and still are many, many problems in Russia.

The way that you change a country or system has to be done carefully. That didn’t happen well enough when communism was dumped rapidly and capitalism was quickly brought in to replace it. To try to ensure that you don’t end up with a right mess, corruption needs to be kept under control and firm regulation and strong employment rights are needed.

Unfortunately the U.S.A. and especially their politicians were at the time (and still are) absolutely useless at rebuilding countries and economies. So yes, American influence didn’t help.

But the success of some of the other former USSR countries shows it can be done.

But the most important question is, has the west and the U.S.A. in particular learned anything from what happened in Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.?

Because, when Putin’s dies or gets removed from power, what then? The world doesn’t really need another Putin like leader in Russia. And would it be better if Russia broke up into a number of smaller countries or would that cause instability and more wars?

 

[martin butler]

I hate to say this, but the most likely scenario will be of disintegration, Russia is a mix of nationalistic tribes, who will if the strong man does, will want to be independent, from each other, And it's going to short term be chaotic, Hopefully it will be a peaceful change, but it also has every making of an civil war, that will destabilise the area, if nations turn against each other and have old scores to settle, people who for decades have been held down by force, once they find the shackles removed, don't exactly make friends over night, , but hopefully, if Europe have learn anything over the 80 od years, it's that working together is better than shouting at each other and waving fists.

 

[brad465]

Yes I know full well what it's for, and I'd prefer it was kept to being for that.

That is also true.

It's getting involved in other peoples' wars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

Not one we need to take on militarily, not least because that war is unwinnable due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

Your mindset is both the reason WW2 and Putin's aggression since 2008 occurred. Aggressors keep going until they are stopped; the earlier they are stopped, the less death and destruction occurs.

I hate to say this, but the most likely scenario will be of disintegration, Russia is a mix of nationalistic tribes, who will if the strong man does, will want to be independent, from each other, And it's going to short term be chaotic, Hopefully it will be a peaceful change, but it also has every making of an civil war, that will destabilise the area, if nations turn against each other and have old scores to settle, people who for decades have been held down by force, once they find the shackles removed, don't exactly make friends over night, , but hopefully, if Europe have learn anything over the 80 od years, it's that working together is better than shouting at each other and waving fists.

I've long thought this about Russia. When Putin is no longer in power, the lack of a clear obvious successor, coupled with an army now greatly depleted in Ukraine, will provide a very conducive environment for such a disintegration. Chechnya and Dagestan are on the edge in the south, and there could well be other regions in the far east interested in breaking away too. I suspect other countries will want to get involved too to make sure their interests prevail; China and the other BRICS will definitely have interests in the far east to protect, especially along its border, while the US and other Western nations will want to make sure the right governments win out.

 

[35B]

Only after a genocide and tens of millions dead in a total war which wiped out the entire European continent. Then western occupation helped prevent democratic back sliding.

I deliberately said 90 years ago, referring to Germany post-Weimar. The success of the FRG would have been unimaginable at that time.

It was inevitable to me, as the main alternatives were a return to socialism under Gennady Zyuganov who won 40% of votes in 1996, or the ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovksy (look him up, he said some hilarious and terrifying things) far behind that. Liberal democratic parties never won more than 10% of votes in 1996 and 2004.

But if westernisation was the cause for instability, wouldn’t they want to vote against it?

You confuse what happened, with the wider concept of westernisation. Of course people chose stability, and of course some of the shock therapy created instability. But that doesn't mean that Russians automatically want an autocrat.

 

[Cdd89]

My understanding is that the manufacturing facilities are mined, and will be destroyed on invasion.

Could be bluff of course - happy to take the chance?

Both Covid and the Russian gas pipeline cutoff have shown that the world is remarkably resilient to what might initially appear to be insurmountable interruptions in supply, and the impacts less catastrophic or prolonged than doomsayers initially predict. (Indeed, using the latter as a bargaining tool to pressure Europe turned out to be a fatal miscalculation by Putin).

In the case of semiconductors we would obviously see rationing/prioritisation of existing stockpiles and new production to critical sectors, but in terms of the consumer impact I expect it would be some higher prices and fewer new models. There is a lot of slack there to be soaked up given that people like me (unnecessarily) buy a new iPhone every year. Concurrently there would be a focus on recycling (not a bad thing) and the entire world would be attempting to ramp up production with huge governmental subsidies to replace one country's output. While the lack of innovation would last years, historical events suggest things would begin to stabilise after a few months.

 

[najaB]

There is a lot of slack there to be soaked up given that people like me (unnecessarily) buy a new iPhone every year.

There really isn't. Mobile phones represent, as a wild-assed guess, less than 10% of semiconductor production.

Concurrently there would be a focus on recycling (not a bad thing) and the entire world would be attempting to ramp up production with huge governmental subsidies to replace one country's output.

It's almost impossible to recycle the vast majority of microprocessors - for one thing these days they are almost all soldered into devices (which makes retrieving them very difficult if not impossible) and a lot are designed for one specific purpose and can't be reused for anything else. As for recycling devices, those things that can be recycled represent only a small proportion compared to those which cannot.

That one country currently produces about 60% of high-end processors, so it isn't a simple matter of "ramping up production". And I think you're underestimating just how difficult, expensive and time-consuming it is to construct a fab facility from scratch. It takes literally years, even in the best cases if only because much of the the equipment isn't off the shelf and has lead times measured in months or years.

 

[Cdd89]

Mobile phones represent, as a wild-assed guess, less than 10% of semiconductor production.

This was purely one example.

It's almost impossible to recycle the vast majority of microprocessors - for one thing these days they are almost all soldered into devices

I was referring to recycling hardware in its entirety - lots of technology is disposed of because it's more cost efficient to replace it.

That one country currently produces about 60% of high-end processors, so it isn't a simple matter of "ramping up production". And I think you're underestimating just how difficult, expensive and time-consuming it is to construct a fab facility from scratch. It takes literally years, even in the best cases if only because much of the the equipment isn't off the shelf and has lead times measured in months or years

I would respond with a corollary, which is that at the start of the pandemic vaccine research, testing, production and rollout was anticipated to take years. In fact it happened remarkably quickly with testing (the one part that couldn't be accelerated) being the slowest phase. Until the world undergoes a shock like this it's very hard to predict how the response will look because domain-specific precedent does not relate to the response in a global emergency.

That said, if you truly believe the catastrophic impact would last years, you should be advocating for writing off Taiwan and replacing its capacity now, even at a loss to governments - because unlike the Russia conflict where we have been able to weaken them relatively cheaply, defending Taiwan is simply not credible.

 

[najaB]

I would respond with a corollary, which is that at the start of the pandemic vaccine research, testing, production and rollout was anticipated to take years.

The difference being that a lot of the necessary work had already been done, such is the nature of mRNA-based vaccines. The same equipment and processes that produce one vaccine can be (vast simplification) washed out, sterilised, and then used to produce another.

 

[JamesT]

I would respond with a corollary, which is that at the start of the pandemic vaccine research, testing, production and rollout was anticipated to take years. In fact it happened remarkably quickly with testing (the one part that couldn't be accelerated) being the slowest phase. Until the world undergoes a shock like this it's very hard to predict how the response will look because domain-specific precedent does not relate to the response in a global emergency.

That said, if you truly believe the catastrophic impact would last years, you should be advocating for writing off Taiwan and replacing its capacity now, even at a loss to governments - because unlike the Russia conflict where we have been able to weaken them relatively cheaply, defending Taiwan is simply not credible.

The major constraint (as @najaB alluded to) on semiconductor production tends to be the photolithography machines made by ASML, a Dutch company. They sold 44 of the high-end models last year and lead times on orders are a year or two.
I suspect it would be very hard to ramp up production of those if you suddenly had to replace a large chunk of world semiconductor production.

 

[Annetts key]

That said, if you truly believe the catastrophic impact would last years, you should be advocating for writing off Taiwan and replacing its capacity now, even at a loss to governments - because unlike the Russia conflict where we have been able to weaken them relatively cheaply, defending Taiwan is simply not credible.

The main island of Taiwan is far easier to defend than Ukraine is. Large parts of its coastline is unsuitable for any kind of large military landing craft.

And China has to get its ships to the island before it can invade, a task that Taiwan and the countries that support them will make extremely difficult. Well, that's if the democratic countries support them. If there is a war, it will be an air and naval war.

Taiwan is a democratic country and as such, other democratic countries should support them if threatened by an authoritarian one-party state like China.

Taiwan is a key player in the supply chain for advanced semiconductor chips. One of the semiconductor companies is the world's largest dedicated independent semiconductor foundry and is responsible for around one quarter of Taiwan's GDP. Many companies that don't have their own semiconductor manufacturing facilities are customers of this company including AMD, Apple, ARM, Broadcom, Marvell, MediaTek, Qualcomm, and Nvidia as well as others.

So a war would most definitely affect many consumer products.

 

[RailWonderer]

I hate to say this, but the most likely scenario will be of disintegration, Russia is a mix of nationalistic tribes, who will if the strong man does, will want to be independent, from each other, And it's going to short term be chaotic, Hopefully it will be a peaceful change, but it also has every making of an civil war, that will destabilise the area, if nations turn against each other and have old scores to settle, people who for decades have been held down by force, once they find the shackles removed, don't exactly make friends over night, , but hopefully, if Europe have learn anything over the 80 odd years, it's that working together is better than shouting at each other and waving fists.

The west will back any separatism as the aim is to undermine Russia piece by piece and make it a weakened servile state. The US doesn’t want a unified Russia, so it will actively work against Russia’s best interests, which is why aligning with the west is equivalent to treason in Russia.

But if you look at the post Soviet countries in Asia, successions is always peaceful from one dictator to the next. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan have all had seamless transitions thanks to Soviet era power structures. These countries are prone to separatism and tribalism in the Islamic parts, I genuinely believe a western democratic system would only lead to instability and chaos.

 

[dgl]

Another thing to remember is that Russia needs to keep the war going, it's easy to say to a parent that "yes, they are still over there fighting valiantly for Russia", when the war is over that no longer works as an excuse.
If you let the population know that they didn't do very well in a war they thought they would win easily they might start questioning the rulers en mass, and I doubt they'd be able to contain that.

Also it takes people's minds off domestic issues, you can blame a lot of things on war, you can't do that when the war is over, even more so if you win and you life is still terrible.