Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
They weren't entirely untrue - Operation Lucid and all that. Thanks to Shell (and others) the UK had stupendous stock of petroleum, refined and unrefined. Which naturally lead to ideas of weaponising it. The most effective weapon was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fougasse
Re oil stocks, in no small part it was also due to the work of the US drillers who came over to Britain (breaking US law in the process) to drill our own onshore oil reserves. The area of Kelham Hills near Newark produced over two and a quarter million barrels of oil during WW2. There are almost 1000 oil wells within 30 miles of Newark.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
If they can build something that works, then we should buy it.
Or should we sit through yet another terminal failure of British Industry trying to build AEW? Nimrod was actually about 17th attempt - just the one that got the furthest before it fell over.
The biggest problem is the ludicrous "But we have a unique requirement for square wheels" stuff.
Yes, and in recent years we had squaddies complaining about shoddy British rifles being worse than ww1-era Lee Enfields whereas American rifles can be fired by any schoolchild. But on the other hand we've also scrapped British Harriers in favour of American F35s we can barely afford and which fall into the sea because the Fleet Air Arm can't work a checklist.
Bottom line: if we want to be in the arms business (and many do not) then we need to eat our own dog food as the tech nerds say.
"‼️Belarus is preparing an air assault on Ukraine! ‼️ Trusted sources in Belarusian opposition journalists inform units of Belarusian special forces prepare paratrooper assault in the Kyiv & Zhytomyr directions
Thus, Belarus is starting an invasion of Ukraine with its own forces"
Terrifying for Ukraine, but doesn't seem like a good sign for Russia either.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, countries that decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
Yes. There’s no reason we couldn’t make our own cheaper drones. The technology is not secret and world-beating, just put together cleverly - AIUI
So buy a few of the Turkish UAVs and then start manufacturing our own. Tell BAE they need to be cheap. Not cutting edge. T34s not Tigers
Dn't give it to BAe. The culture is giant cost plus contracts.
It's like Boeing. When they were doing to Commercial Crew contract in for flights to the Space Station, the original contracts were under fixed price, per milestone. Do X get Y. Poor Boeing had to gets its lobbyists to get that changed since they couldn't work to the idea of doing work for a sum of money. They needed a river of cash, with nasty demands for results. Their offering still isn't ready.
Fundamentally, the most basic drones are light aircraft crossed with giant model planes. So get a small manufacturer of composites to build an airframe - this is low performance stuff, so no need for zillion dollar tech. An existing aircraft engine - small. Yes, you need hardened communications - encryption and jamming resistant - but, you can buy that off the shelf. Then add some weapons racks.
This is what the Turks did. Minimum viable product. And this is what Big Aerospace *can't* do.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
I always read that as ‘race science’
Wasn’t Churchill, like many of the great and good, an early adherent of eugenics? It would be nice to think he’d had his eyes opened, yet ‘Keep England white’ makes me skeptical.
The Ukrainian plan seems to be we’re willing to see higher casualties and more destruction as a means to make it more difficult for Putin to sell this back home.
The hope is that it loses public support and the longer shot that there’s a Moscow coup .
Given the cards are so stacked against Ukraine this plan seems to be the only one on offer . A quick victory for Putin must be avoided at all costs .
Are you aware that Russia has been cut off from the western financial system? Robert Peston (not always a fan) thinks only President Xi can save Putin now.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
They might, but they appear to have decided that openness serves them better. The figures could well be seriously over optimistic, but I don’t get the impression they are actively dishonest at all.
The obvious contrast with Russian propaganda seems to be a deliberate decision.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
Racial 'purity'? There were also some potentially dodgy chemical-type experiments being conducted.
Of course, cigar-addicted Churchill might have been referring to the anti-smoking work being done by the Germans.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
Weren't their Soviet pilots (surreptitiously) in the North Korean air force during the Korean War?
The boundaries are certainly blurry, and get ever more blurred by the advances in technology.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
I always read that as ‘race science’
Wasn’t Churchill, like many of the great and good, an early adherent of eugenics? It would be nice to think he’d had his eyes opened, yet ‘Keep England white’ makes me skeptical.
It was a common place in intellectual circles at the time. And like nearly everyone else, the example of the Nazis caused him to turn away from it.
Once Priti Patel's border bill is passed, it would apply to any Ukrainian who managed to make it to the UK through another country. The govt could send them to an offshore detention camp, or punishment accommodation, or keep them apart from their family.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, countries that decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
We do have our own drone developments, such as the Mosquito UCAV or the swarming drones. The problem is we go really slowly - the former's not expecting a test flight until next year.
Get something in the air, then perfect it, you nitwits! (though to be fair, the swarms have flown).
Are you aware that Russia has been cut off from the western financial system? Robert Peston (not always a fan) thinks only President Xi can save Putin now.
BIG: At least two of China’s largest state-owned banks are restricting financing for purchases of Russian commodities.
I have no idea what Putin thought would happen but I'm 99% sure it didn't involve Germany going on a rearmament spending spree. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to deliver the bad news to Putin.
If you think that's poorly timed you're the one with the problem.
“Now is not the time” sounds curiously similar to the Tory line on partygate a month or so back - and like every other call for mature reflection…. some time in the future. Long grass might be involved.
It was one of @Leon's more stupid reactions, I'm sorry to say.
We are seeing oligarchs trying to avoid this and how their U.K. advisors are helping them. Abramovich's move is purely a PR one BTW. He retains ownership.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
If they can build something that works, then we should buy it.
Or should we sit through yet another terminal failure of British Industry trying to build AEW? Nimrod was actually about 17th attempt - just the one that got the furthest before it fell over.
The biggest problem is the ludicrous "But we have a unique requirement for square wheels" stuff.
Yes, and in recent years we had squaddies complaining about shoddy British rifles being worse than ww1-era Lee Enfields whereas American rifles can be fired by any schoolchild. But on the other hand we've also scrapped British Harriers in favour of American F35s we can barely afford and which fall into the sea because the Fleet Air Arm can't work a checklist.
Bottom line: if we want to be in the arms business (and many do not) then we need to eat our own dog food as the tech nerds say.
The Harriers were replaced because they were old and have close to zero electronic warfare capability (among other issues). They would be dead meat against anything vaguely modern and they weren't big enough to stuff more capability in. Hell, to get a decent radar in took some innovative stuff - splitting the radar from the processing, so the processing unit would go at the back behind the engine to keep the aircraft balanced.
The rifle issue was caused by plain bad design. The joke is that with modern CNC manufacturing you could, now, make EM-2s cheaply....
The Ukrainian plan seems to be we’re willing to see higher casualties and more destruction as a means to make it more difficult for Putin to sell this back home.
The hope is that it loses public support and the longer shot that there’s a Moscow coup .
Given the cards are so stacked against Ukraine this plan seems to be the only one on offer . A quick victory for Putin must be avoided at all costs .
Are you aware that Russia has been cut off from the western financial system? Robert Peston (not always a fan) thinks only President Xi can save Putin now.
Putin has set in motion a dynamic that either ends with his downfall or with the establishment of a new Stalinist Eurasian superpower, and President Xi has no interest in helping create the latter.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
Sigh. No it really doesn't. Europe can very easily 'tool up' within the NATO structure and rely less upon the US without any overarching need for the EU.
This is not a call for the EU to disappear but a recognition that if you tie military cooperation to the EU then you will get fewer countries willing to take part because of all the rest of the rubbish that comes with it. Keep the EU for its political and trade links if you want and keep NATO as the military structure since it was specifically created for exactly this role and is ideally suited to it.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Good header @Cyclefree. The ideal scenario is one where MP's actions are dictated by their consciences, and the electorate, not necessarily in that order. It's fair to say that at the moment we don't have this. You identify money coming in from Russia and other countries as a source of distortion, and it is, but not the only one. There is also money from corporate entities, meaning the same old monolithic companies are selected for Government work. There is also the old boys/girls network of Common Purpose casting a big shadow over public appointments. There is also the influence of the USA, so overwhelming that it's now not even noticed, where a terse videocall from Biden can dictate British foreign and domestic policy. There *was* also European Union decree, which British Governments were compelled to write into statute, without it being put before the public as part of any manifesto. Thankfully that one has gone. And that's not a comprehensive list.
The solution cannot be one of tackling the money coming in, and telling politicians that they are just going to have to be poorer - that's like telling corporations that they are just going to have to make less profit. So it has to be that politicians have financial incentives to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. So, I am thinking of launching an app, along the following lines. The app allows any private UK voter to register, and they are allowed to donate a pound to any politician of their choice. It can only be one pound, per politician, per year. The app has an API link up with the 'they work for you' website or similar, and your pound donation must be linked to an action taken by that politician, for example, voting against the live export of animals, or making a speech on behalf of Tibet. A politician could make thousands or even millions of pounds by making popular decisions, far exceeding their earnings potential from all other sources.
That's an interesting idea and I'd encourage you to try it. There is an objective problem in British democracy that the spending limits are porous (only applied at elections, with huge loopholes), and although you can't buy electoral success, you are massively handicapped if your opponent outspends you 2-1.
I was once offered a large donation to my chronically cash-strapped constitituency party by the representative of a group supporting Azerbaijan. I said, truthfully, that I'd not followed events there closely, and had no strong views on the rights and wrongs vis-a-vis Armenia, so why was he approaching me? He said no problem, we'll be pleased to brief you, we just want some intelligent MPs to take an interest. Increasingly wary about the mixture of £££s and flattery, I asked curiously what they'd expect for their money. "Nothing, except interest in the region. Well not at first, anyway - later we'd hope you'd ask some supportive questions." Yeah, right.
I declined, and considered reporting it, but it was too nebulous for the authorities to have been interested. But I won't deny that the thought "This could enable me to fight the next election on more equal terms" had crossed my mind when he started his spiel. Writ small, that's the same thinking that encourages the Tories to accept ££££££ from people who apparently just want a pleasant chat or a tennis match with a Minister but then turn out to want more. It's a slippery slope, and fixing our spending limits would be a useful part of the solution. Buying influence is not only a problem if the donors are related to oligarchs - that's just a particularly egregious example, as Cyclefree points out.
Thanks - interesting story, and well done for your stance.
The app would be called 'Populi' or some variation depending on existing trademarks. However, I am just a 'umble ideas man. Actually launching the thing would entail a skillset that I don't have. Not that creating the user interface would be hard, more the financial and data side. Unless anyone fancies helping.
If we're looking for a place to house refugees how about all those empty houses on Bishops Avenue ?
There are a considerable number of funny money Russian kleptocrat's mansions ready to be confiscated. The Government could even pay for some bursaries to expensive private schools once all their kids have been thrown out.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
I always read that as ‘race science’
Wasn’t Churchill, like many of the great and good, an early adherent of eugenics? It would be nice to think he’d had his eyes opened, yet ‘Keep England white’ makes me skeptical.
It was a common place in intellectual circles at the time. And like nearly everyone else, the example of the Nazis caused him to turn away from it.
Aye, maybe the keep England white thing was about the cliffs of Dover.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, countries that decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
Yes. There’s no reason we couldn’t make our own cheaper drones. The technology is not secret and world-beating, just put together cleverly - AIUI
So buy a few of the Turkish UAVs and then start manufacturing our own. Tell BAE they need to be cheap. Not cutting edge. T34s not Tigers
Dn't give it to BAe. The culture is giant cost plus contracts.
It's like Boeing. When they were doing to Commercial Crew contract in for flights to the Space Station, the original contracts were under fixed price, per milestone. Do X get Y. Poor Boeing had to gets its lobbyists to get that changed since they couldn't work to the idea of doing work for a sum of money. They needed a river of cash, with nasty demands for results. Their offering still isn't ready.
Fundamentally, the most basic drones are light aircraft crossed with giant model planes. So get a small manufacturer of composites to build an airframe - this is low performance stuff, so no need for zillion dollar tech. An existing aircraft engine - small. Yes, you need hardened communications - encryption and jamming resistant - but, you can buy that off the shelf. Then add some weapons racks.
This is what the Turks did. Minimum viable product. And this is what Big Aerospace *can't* do.
Actually, I disagree with the last line. Big Aerospace *can* do it. They just need to be told to do it. "Give us this, by then, for this." And tell them to give it to an internal skunkworks.
The same way the original IBM PC was developed, by a small team in a corporate goliath, led by Bill Lowe and Don Estridge. You get the advantages of a small, tight team, and also of the parent's resources.
BTW, IBM's previous two attempts at producing a PC failed.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
"‼️Belarus is preparing an air assault on Ukraine! ‼️ Trusted sources in Belarusian opposition journalists inform units of Belarusian special forces prepare paratrooper assault in the Kyiv & Zhytomyr directions
Thus, Belarus is starting an invasion of Ukraine with its own forces"
Terrifying for Ukraine, but doesn't seem like a good sign for Russia either.
The invasion of Ukraine is likely to reawaken the movement for democracy in Belarus, which will be another headache for Putin.
Is it fair to say much of the visceral objection to Germany and, by extension the EU, was actually opposition to Merkel and Schroeder? Discuss.
Not really. Most of the criticism for Merkel over the years has some from people on the Eurosceptic right. The fact that she's a conservative is irrelevant to them, its her position as an emblem of Europe that triggers those people. Of course, rational criticism can be made of her policies -- nobody spends two decades in power with fucking a few things up -- but the fierce and often lunatic hatred for her vastly outweighs the sober and detailed critiques of her actions.
A giant imo compared to most big national leaders during her period.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
Racial 'purity'? There were also some potentially dodgy chemical-type experiments being conducted.
Of course, cigar-addicted Churchill might have been referring to the anti-smoking work being done by the Germans.
The German chemical industry and it's products were well know to the Allies, from WWI....
The Nazis got as far a playing with Chlorine Trifluoride. But decided it was too nuts for them.
Russian Central Bank statement announcing unlimited rouble liquidity… having to reassure public
“The Russian banking system is stable, has sufficient capital and liquidity to function smoothly in any situation. All customer funds on the accounts are saved and available”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497898626835783687
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
Politically this is the same problem they (and Biden) had with Afghanistan: The voters want refugees when the crisis is the main thing in the news, but at some point they'll get bored with the story and they won't want them any more.
Yes. Unfortunately, I think HMG played the politics of refugees note-perfect over Afghanistan. They said all the right things at the time, made substantive interventions (saving animals) that played well with the voters, and are now doing as little as possible as the point of crisis has passed.
It's a long road to convince British voters to be more generous to refugees, and we're in a bit of a bind at the moment. It will only happen when a major political party starts talking about it, so as to change opinion, but in the short term there's apolitical cost to doing so.
The SNP can manage to do this because the issue of Independence overrides all.
The Ukrainian plan seems to be we’re willing to see higher casualties and more destruction as a means to make it more difficult for Putin to sell this back home.
The hope is that it loses public support and the longer shot that there’s a Moscow coup .
Given the cards are so stacked against Ukraine this plan seems to be the only one on offer . A quick victory for Putin must be avoided at all costs .
Are you aware that Russia has been cut off from the western financial system? Robert Peston (not always a fan) thinks only President Xi can save Putin now.
Putin has set in motion a dynamic that either ends with his downfall or with the establishment of a new Stalinist Eurasian superpower, and President Xi has no interest in helping create the latter.
Xi presumably wants neither a pro-Western Russia nor an expansionist psychopath with thousands of nuclear weapons on his borders. The ideal solution for him is the overthrow of Putin and his replacement with another despot with a firmer grasp on reality.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
The same way the original IBM PC was developed, by a small team in a corporate goliath, led by Bill Lowe and Don Estridge. You get the advantages of a small, tight team, and also of the parent's resources.
Russian Central Bank statement announcing unlimited rouble liquidity… having to reassure public
“The Russian banking system is stable, has sufficient capital and liquidity to function smoothly in any situation. All customer funds on the accounts are saved and available”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497898626835783687
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Yes I am sure Ukrainians are lying just as much as the Russians are...thats war
Russian Central Bank statement announcing unlimited rouble liquidity… having to reassure public
“The Russian banking system is stable, has sufficient capital and liquidity to function smoothly in any situation. All customer funds on the accounts are saved and available”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497898626835783687
When a central bank says 'no one panic, your money is safe in banks', one knows what happens next.
#Belarus I ask Ukrainians to see this. Belarusians are gathering in their cities and chanting, "No to war!" Security forces are mobilized, are arresting citizens, dispersing them. People shout at police: "Traitors!", coming out with banners but immediately dragged away by police https://twitter.com/HannaLiubakova/status/1497898104594612225/video/1
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
Russian Central Bank statement announcing unlimited rouble liquidity… having to reassure public
“The Russian banking system is stable, has sufficient capital and liquidity to function smoothly in any situation. All customer funds on the accounts are saved and available”… https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497898626835783687
Of course there is unlimited ruble liquidity. They can issue as many rubles as they need.
How much they'll be worth is another matter. See also: Zimbabwe.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
West Germany formed the backbone of NATO's conventional forces during the Cold War so it's wrong to see rearmament as a totally new thing that requires deeper European integration.
Rouble will tank when markets start to open in Asia late tonight & then in Moscow.
RCB will be busy intervening, if it can.
Also expect to hear more about which Russian banks are targeted by Swift dismissal..market talk about exempting oil & gas payments focussed eg Gazprombank
The biggest problem is the ludicrous "But we have a unique requirement for square wheels" stuff.
There is a scene in the West Wing where they are discussing why an ashtray for a submarine costs $400 and the explanation is that it is made of glass and designed to break into 3 large blunt pieces instead of multiple shards in case of an accident.
What is never explored is why they don't use those pressed aluminium saucers that used to be ubiquitous in pubs...
Also the probably apocryphal story of the American space pen, designed to write upside down in zero gravity. Or use a pencil...
In both cases starting with a fixed assumption (ashtrays are made of glass, write with a pen) leads you down an expensive path
In real life, they always used metal ashtrays.
The space pen story is actual the reverse. NASA put out a spec for a space pen. A chap built a company around making such pens, developed at his own cost. Then sold them to the world as "As used by NASA astronauts". Sold them to NASA at the consumer price - a few dollars each.... They are still used today on the space station.
The famous one was the toilet seats on subs. Which had to be used continuously by a hundred men, for months on end, never ever break, and not make a noise when dropped. So they ended up being somewhat custom. And since there were 2 toilets on each sub, the production line was short....
But yes, the basic problem is the stupid requirements. So, when the British army kept on demanding rifled guns for the tanks, they should have thought about why they wanted those. A fin stabilised HESH round was perfectly possible, and not even that expensive. Demonstrated by FN, IIRC.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
yes and its why I am nervous of this Dads Army gung ho lets all chip in to kill russians attitude. Its admirable and understandable and justified -is it wise given the practicalities of the world?
Absolutely...never forget the Russians could nuke London in an instant...thousands of years of history instantly vapourised
Played a portion of this clip on #SundayMorning, @trussliz replied “I don’t think any of us thought we would be here”. But the full clip shows PM scoffing at @Tobias_Ellwood who *specifically* warns about Russian forces amassing at the Ukrainian border.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
So Putin has managed to unite Europe and NATO and its actions are causing Germany to ditch decades of policy which was more amenable to Russia. The huge increase in German defence spending will be a huge boost to NATO .
Politically this is the same problem they (and Biden) had with Afghanistan: The voters want refugees when the crisis is the main thing in the news, but at some point they'll get bored with the story and they won't want them any more.
Yes. Unfortunately, I think HMG played the politics of refugees note-perfect over Afghanistan. They said all the right things at the time, made substantive interventions (saving animals) that played well with the voters, and are now doing as little as possible as the point of crisis has passed.
It's a long road to convince British voters to be more generous to refugees, and we're in a bit of a bind at the moment. It will only happen when a major political party starts talking about it, so as to change opinion, but in the short term there's apolitical cost to doing so.
The SNP can manage to do this because the issue of Independence overrides all.
It's nothing to do with independence; they know they can emote about refugees all they like because barely any come here.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
yes and its why I am nervous of this Dads Army gung ho lets all chip in to kill russians attitude. Its admirable and understandable and justified -is it wise given the practicalities of the world?
Absolutely...never forget the Russians could nuke London in an instant...thousands of years of history instantly vapourised
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. .
In the 2001 Ukrainian census, 8,334,100 identified as ethnic Russians (17.3% of the population of Ukraine); this is the combined figure for persons originating from outside of Ukraine and the Ukrainian-born population declaring Russian ethnicity.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
Ethnic Russian ≠ Russian national either, any more than British Indian ≠ Indian national. Though FWIW, 17% of Ukraine is considerably less than 20 million people.
Map to show us where we are on Day 4. Points of note: - Russians close to linking Crimea with Donbas - advances to Kharkiv and Sumy in NE - forces on outskirts of Kyiv bolstered - Ukrainian resistance holding up elsewhere - UA air force still flying https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1497754623729451009/photo/1
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
And equally easy to advise them to surrender when you’re not bearing the consequences either. At least those supporting them recognise that Ukrainians have agency in the decision.
If you think that's poorly timed you're the one with the problem.
“Now is not the time” sounds curiously similar to the Tory line on partygate a month or so back - and like every other call for mature reflection…. some time in the future. Long grass might be involved.
It was one of @Leon's more stupid reactions, I'm sorry to say.
We are seeing oligarchs trying to avoid this and how their U.K. advisors are helping them. Abramovich's move is purely a PR one BTW. He retains ownership.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Russia is the one doing all the war atrocities, and I am sure you agree that Putin should be tried in the Hague for war crimes
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that than by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
@KevinRothrock 20 years in prison if you send any aid whatsoever to the Ukrainian state or any organization abroad or its representatives that is “directed against Russian security.” “Financial, logistical, consulting, or other assistance.” That is what Russia’s federal govt just threatened.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
Politically this is the same problem they (and Biden) had with Afghanistan: The voters want refugees when the crisis is the main thing in the news, but at some point they'll get bored with the story and they won't want them any more.
Yes. Unfortunately, I think HMG played the politics of refugees note-perfect over Afghanistan. They said all the right things at the time, made substantive interventions (saving animals) that played well with the voters, and are now doing as little as possible as the point of crisis has passed.
It's a long road to convince British voters to be more generous to refugees, and we're in a bit of a bind at the moment. It will only happen when a major political party starts talking about it, so as to change opinion, but in the short term there's apolitical cost to doing so.
The SNP can manage to do this because the issue of Independence overrides all.
It's nothing to do with independence; they know they can emote about refugees all they like because barely any come here.
It is BBC Natland, but..
'Fifth of UK's Syrian refugees settled in Scotland'
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
yes and its why I am nervous of this Dads Army gung ho lets all chip in to kill russians attitude. Its admirable and understandable and justified -is it wise given the practicalities of the world?
Absolutely...never forget the Russians could nuke London in an instant...thousands of years of history instantly vapourised
Ethnic Russian ≠ Russian national either, any more than British Indian ≠ Indian national. Though FWIW, 17% of Ukraine is considerably less than 20 million people.
Besides that there's not much evidence that despite their Russian ethnicity those people actually want to be ruled by the crooks in the Kremlin.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
Map to show us where we are on Day 4. Points of note: - Russians close to linking Crimea with Donbas - advances to Kharkiv and Sumy in NE - forces on outskirts of Kyiv bolstered - Ukrainian resistance holding up elsewhere - UA air force still flying https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1497754623729451009/photo/1
Hmm, that doesn't sound too good, but it also supports what was mentioned a couple of days ago here. The strategy of a more rational leader would have been very obviously to link up from the south first. The other areas seem to be going much slower and are huge liabilities for him.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
The idea that language dictates nationalism is a romantic concept from the nineteenth century. The modern reality is a great deal more complicated than that. Zelensky is a Russian on @YBarddCwsc ’s criteria.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, countries that decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
Yes. There’s no reason we couldn’t make our own cheaper drones. The technology is not secret and world-beating, just put together cleverly - AIUI
So buy a few of the Turkish UAVs and then start manufacturing our own. Tell BAE they need to be cheap. Not cutting edge. T34s not Tigers
Dn't give it to BAe. The culture is giant cost plus contracts.
It's like Boeing. When they were doing to Commercial Crew contract in for flights to the Space Station, the original contracts were under fixed price, per milestone. Do X get Y. Poor Boeing had to gets its lobbyists to get that changed since they couldn't work to the idea of doing work for a sum of money. They needed a river of cash, with nasty demands for results. Their offering still isn't ready.
Fundamentally, the most basic drones are light aircraft crossed with giant model planes. So get a small manufacturer of composites to build an airframe - this is low performance stuff, so no need for zillion dollar tech. An existing aircraft engine - small. Yes, you need hardened communications - encryption and jamming resistant - but, you can buy that off the shelf. Then add some weapons racks.
This is what the Turks did. Minimum viable product. And this is what Big Aerospace *can't* do.
Sounds like we need some seed funding for new companies. Run a few competitions for university engineering departments who can then set up spin-off companies.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
They might, but they appear to have decided that openness serves them better. The figures could well be seriously over optimistic, but I don’t get the impression they are actively dishonest at all.
The obvious contrast with Russian propaganda seems to be a deliberate decision.
Yes they are playing a very clever InfoOps game. Being more open than the Russians (whilst I am sure still shaping the message and telling some lies). It’s genius precisely because Putin can’t compete. See also the Ukrainian President amongst his people whilst Putin sits in his bunker.
[Translated from Russian] Last night I asked Alexander Lukashenko to ensure the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of his country. The brotherhood between the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples should push Belarus to refuse to become a vassal and an actual accomplice of Russia in the war against Ukraine.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
Complaining when someone posts legitimate polling data on PB.... That's an interesting approach.
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
yes and its why I am nervous of this Dads Army gung ho lets all chip in to kill russians attitude. Its admirable and understandable and justified -is it wise given the practicalities of the world?
Absolutely...never forget the Russians could nuke London in an instant...thousands of years of history instantly vapourised
Hence why Trident would wipe out Moscow if you want to make such threats
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
The idea that language dictates nationalism is a romantic concept from the nineteenth century. The modern reality is a great deal more complicated than that. Zelensky is a Russian on @YBarddCwsc ’s criteria.
Don't be stupid. I would be English on the idiotic criteria you are suggesting.
I used a number from wiki that gives the (rough) proportion of ethnic Russians.
Of course, if we had the results of a plebiscite, we would have accurate data with which to work.
[Translated from Russian] Last night I asked Alexander Lukashenko to ensure the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of his country. The brotherhood between the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples should push Belarus to refuse to become a vassal and an actual accomplice of Russia in the war against Ukraine.
The biggest problem is the ludicrous "But we have a unique requirement for square wheels" stuff.
There is a scene in the West Wing where they are discussing why an ashtray for a submarine costs $400 and the explanation is that it is made of glass and designed to break into 3 large blunt pieces instead of multiple shards in case of an accident.
What is never explored is why they don't use those pressed aluminium saucers that used to be ubiquitous in pubs...
Also the probably apocryphal story of the American space pen, designed to write upside down in zero gravity. Or use a pencil...
In both cases starting with a fixed assumption (ashtrays are made of glass, write with a pen) leads you down an expensive path
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
You mean for Ukraine to surrender to the Putin
Followed, no doubt, by the Baltic States and Finland, and the reconstitution of the Warsaw Pact.
Trying to stop this wretched man *before* he starts trying to dismember NATO is a less dangerous option than waiting until we're forced to fight him directly.
This makes me wonder how the Cold War rules hold up when faced with weapons that are basically robots.
Like traditionally NATO and the Soviets avoid fighting each other directly because that's WW3, but it's normal and accepted to fund and arm other people fighting against the other side. So US troops aren't going to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but they'll send guns for Ukrainians to shoot the Russians with.
Now instead of a gun shooting at a tank, it's a drone bombing the tank. (OK in this case it's Turkey sending it not the US but bear with me.) I guess it has to take off from Ukraine, if they let it take off from Poland that would be WW3. But say as well as the drone being made by the US, the intelligence about where the tank is also comes direct from the US. And having been given a thing to bomb, it can use its software to get there and bomb it. And if it needs a software update it downloads that from the US. Is that all OK on Cold War rules, provided there's a Ukrainian in the Ukraine with a laptop pressing enter? What's the point where we say we're starting WW3, because the US just sent a killer robot to kill Russians?
It’s a very good point. These Turkish drones are cleverly assembled in Turkey, but much of the tech inside is US and British. And the software?
And what are the chances that US satellites are quietly ‘helping’ the Ukrainian drone operators?
Another thing is the cheapness of this kit. A Bayraktar drone is $1-2m. A big hi tech US drone is $15-40m
But the cheap Turkish drone can do enormous damage and win wars (as we saw in Nagorno Karabakh)
Wonder if the Government will face the wrath of Big and Expensive and chums by buying off the shelf - like the Airseekers.
Trouble is if we become too reliant on foreign arms, we lose our own industry and become dependent on countries that might in future years become hostile or even, and this is more likely, countries that decide to stop making the ACME boot polish the British army depends on, leaving us to scrabble around buying spares and scraps from shady arms dealers.
Yes. There’s no reason we couldn’t make our own cheaper drones. The technology is not secret and world-beating, just put together cleverly - AIUI
So buy a few of the Turkish UAVs and then start manufacturing our own. Tell BAE they need to be cheap. Not cutting edge. T34s not Tigers
Dn't give it to BAe. The culture is giant cost plus contracts.
It's like Boeing. When they were doing to Commercial Crew contract in for flights to the Space Station, the original contracts were under fixed price, per milestone. Do X get Y. Poor Boeing had to gets its lobbyists to get that changed since they couldn't work to the idea of doing work for a sum of money. They needed a river of cash, with nasty demands for results. Their offering still isn't ready.
Fundamentally, the most basic drones are light aircraft crossed with giant model planes. So get a small manufacturer of composites to build an airframe - this is low performance stuff, so no need for zillion dollar tech. An existing aircraft engine - small. Yes, you need hardened communications - encryption and jamming resistant - but, you can buy that off the shelf. Then add some weapons racks.
This is what the Turks did. Minimum viable product. And this is what Big Aerospace *can't* do.
Sounds like we need some seed funding for new companies. Run a few competitions for university engineering departments who can then set up spin-off companies.
There is, in fact, a huge amount of small-medium sized hi-tech engineering in the UK. The Formula 1 stuff is just one expression of that. Tons of companies that could build a composite airframe for a small, slow mini-aircraft, for a start.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Ukraine, with its sizeable Russian-speaking minority, voted for independence with a huge majority. Including, to a lesser extent, Crimea. Only a generation ago.
99% English speaking Scotland only just voted the other way. Language isn't everything.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
They might, but they appear to have decided that openness serves them better. The figures could well be seriously over optimistic, but I don’t get the impression they are actively dishonest at all.
The obvious contrast with Russian propaganda seems to be a deliberate decision.
Yes they are playing a very clever InfoOps game. Being more open than the Russians (whilst I am sure still shaping the message and telling some lies). It’s genius precisely because Putin can’t compete. See also the Ukrainian President amongst his people whilst Putin sits in his bunker.
Example: we were told the defenders of Snake Island died as heroes, now they may be alive. Whoever is responsible saw a good story and decided to use it optimally.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
It needs to continue until Putin falls.
Yes but don't underestimate Putin...he has a very tight inner circle who will defend him to the last
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Taking part in public debate, so that fellow citizens vote for a firmer policy on defending against Russian aggression, is a course of action that has value in a democracy. It's what being in a democracy is all about.
My words aren't rendered worthless because I'm not personally under arms.
Kharkiv now totally controlled by Ukraine again, acc to local administration. Local head Oleg Sinegubov says Russian soldiers "abandoning vehicles and surrendering in groups"
Took a little drive round Kharkiv. Current situation: - streets deserted - some kind of fight/operation still going on around Shevchenko avenue/Hidropark. - city in Ukrainian hands
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
Complaining when someone posts legitimate polling data on PB.... That's an interesting approach.
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
Well, do you not accept that the regions in that map are rather big?
Like the Crimea, which has a Russian majority, is absorbed into some gigantic (& arbitrary) region of south/central Ukraine.
If you want to demonstrate that there was no appetite for Scottish independence, you could join Scotland with NE England and NW England and carry out a poll.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
It needs to continue until Putin falls.
Yes but don't underestimate Putin...he has a very tight inner circle who will defend him to the last
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that than by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
It would have made not one blind but of difference.
Firstly every single region of Ukraine voted for independence in 1991 - including Crimea. How would you suggest they had separated out little pockets of Crimea to give to the Russians?
Secondly Putin is not interested in just the majority Russian areas. He wants the whole of Ukraine. He would still have launched this war and we would still be in the same place.
Sadly, I suspect Ukrainian bravery and resistance are only delaying, not overcoming, Russia's immediate war aims. This raises the question of what is likely to happen once Russia has eliminated the Ukrainian government.
Here I think the parallel is with Iraq, not Afghanistan. Both programmes suffered optimism bias, believing the invaders would be at least accepted if not welcomed. Also little apparent planning for day 2. It is probably worse for Russia than the Iraq invasion was for America. Russia can less afford it; Ukraine appears to have a shallower support from citizens; the Ukrainian opposition is likely to be more unified.
So I suppose Russia can set up "Green Zone" in Kiev with a puppet government with someone like Victor Medvedchuk (worth a read) . Then what?
Yes Ukrainians resistance comes with a heavy cost in terms of people lost and potential war atrocities...its very easy to be an armchair general in the uk
Do you think Zelensky should travel to Belarus?
Peace is the best option for all we don't know how far this will escalate
It needs to continue until Putin falls.
Yes but don't underestimate Putin...he has a very tight inner circle who will defend him to the last
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
Complaining when someone posts legitimate polling data on PB.... That's an interesting approach.
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
Well, do you not accept that the regions in that map are rather big?
Like the Crimea, which has a Russian majority, is absorbed into some gigantic (& arbitrary) region of south/central Ukraine.
If you want to demonstrate that there was no appetite for Scottish independence, you could join Scotland with NE England and NW England and carry out a poll.
OT another Brexit dividend: better commercial secrecy or more fraud?
The names of thousands of companies which benefited from billions of pounds of Covid-19 loans schemes are to be kept confidential under new government rules to only publish state subsidies of £500,000 or more.
Comments
Bottom line: if we want to be in the arms business (and many do not) then we need to eat our own dog food as the tech nerds say.
It's like Boeing. When they were doing to Commercial Crew contract in for flights to the Space Station, the original contracts were under fixed price, per milestone. Do X get Y. Poor Boeing had to gets its lobbyists to get that changed since they couldn't work to the idea of doing work for a sum of money. They needed a river of cash, with nasty demands for results. Their offering still isn't ready.
Fundamentally, the most basic drones are light aircraft crossed with giant model planes. So get a small manufacturer of composites to build an airframe - this is low performance stuff, so no need for zillion dollar tech. An existing aircraft engine - small. Yes, you need hardened communications - encryption and jamming resistant - but, you can buy that off the shelf. Then add some weapons racks.
This is what the Turks did. Minimum viable product. And this is what Big Aerospace *can't* do.
The figures could well be seriously over optimistic, but I don’t get the impression they are actively dishonest at all.
The obvious contrast with Russian propaganda seems to be a deliberate decision.
Of course, cigar-addicted Churchill might have been referring to the anti-smoking work being done by the Germans.
The boundaries are certainly blurry, and get ever more blurred by the advances in technology.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patel-borders-bill-immigration-criminalise-most-desperate-help-1090690
Get something in the air, then perfect it, you nitwits! (though to be fair, the swarms have flown).
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/01/25/uk-loyal-wingman-drone/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-to-introduce-additional-swarming-drone-squadron/
Oddly, a friend was working for a large UK company on similar tech ten years ago...
Lenders reportedly have not received explicit guidance on Russia from Chinese regulators - Beijing clearly assessing its options: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-25/chinese-state-banks-restrict-financing-for-russian-commodities
Today we have the White House and the EU finally setting up a task force to hunt out and seize looted assets from oligarchs. https://twitter.com/harryyorke1/status/1497639102384156674?s=21
and
https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1497697935605252105?s=21
and
https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1497707469350526986?s=21
We are seeing oligarchs trying to avoid this and how their U.K. advisors are helping them. Abramovich's move is purely a PR one BTW. He retains ownership.
And there is this article by Nick Cohen on a similar theme to mine - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/26/putin-british-rich-mans-law-avoid-scrutiny-crippling-cost.
As for @tlg86's request for names, I am conscious that this OGH's blog not mine.
But some names worth looking at - based on publicly available information published in other newspapers are:
- Dmitry Firtash, his now defunct charity and one of its original directors;
- Evgeny Lebedev - appointed to our legislature by a Tory government but silent on Russia's invasion of Ukraine; and
- the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/establishment-flocks-to-dine-at-kremlin-linked-imperial-orthodox-palestine-society-2zmg8dbkb.
And that's just relating to Russia. There is plenty more in relation to China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other dodgy states.
This header - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/07/23/laundering-reputations-china-and-its-uighurs/#vanilla-comments - also gives more information.
The rifle issue was caused by plain bad design. The joke is that with modern CNC manufacturing you could, now, make EM-2s cheaply....
This is not a call for the EU to disappear but a recognition that if you tie military cooperation to the EU then you will get fewer countries willing to take part because of all the rest of the rubbish that comes with it. Keep the EU for its political and trade links if you want and keep NATO as the military structure since it was specifically created for exactly this role and is ideally suited to it.
The app would be called 'Populi' or some variation depending on existing trademarks. However, I am just a 'umble ideas man. Actually launching the thing would entail a skillset that I don't have. Not that creating the user interface would be hard, more the financial and data side. Unless anyone fancies helping.
The same way the original IBM PC was developed, by a small team in a corporate goliath, led by Bill Lowe and Don Estridge. You get the advantages of a small, tight team, and also of the parent's resources.
BTW, IBM's previous two attempts at producing a PC failed.
The Nazis got as far a playing with Chlorine Trifluoride. But decided it was too nuts for them.
“The Russian banking system is stable, has sufficient capital and liquidity to function smoothly in any situation. All customer funds on the accounts are saved and available”…
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497898626835783687
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Schleswig_plebiscites
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
It's a long road to convince British voters to be more generous to refugees, and we're in a bit of a bind at the moment. It will only happen when a major political party starts talking about it, so as to change opinion, but in the short term there's apolitical cost to doing so.
The SNP can manage to do this because the issue of Independence overrides all.
Probably not what they expected last week...
Monday morning will be interesting...
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
How much they'll be worth is another matter. See also: Zimbabwe.
RCB will be busy intervening, if it can.
Also expect to hear more about which Russian banks are targeted by Swift dismissal..market talk about exempting oil & gas payments focussed eg Gazprombank
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1497899783847088129
The space pen story is actual the reverse. NASA put out a spec for a space pen. A chap built a company around making such pens, developed at his own cost. Then sold them to the world as "As used by NASA astronauts". Sold them to NASA at the consumer price - a few dollars each.... They are still used today on the space station.
The famous one was the toilet seats on subs. Which had to be used continuously by a hundred men, for months on end, never ever break, and not make a noise when dropped. So they ended up being somewhat custom. And since there were 2 toilets on each sub, the production line was short....
But yes, the basic problem is the stupid requirements. So, when the British army kept on demanding rifled guns for the tanks, they should have thought about why they wanted those. A fin stabilised HESH round was perfectly possible, and not even that expensive. Demonstrated by FN, IIRC.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1461044674550972421/video/1
It really is worth watching the full clip to the end. Johnson showboating and actually laughing at a former officer, warning him that a land battle was about to break out.
“He got the big calls right”, did he?
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
Winning bigly!
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1497843118191923204?s=21
- Russians close to linking Crimea with Donbas
- advances to Kharkiv and Sumy in NE
- forces on outskirts of Kyiv bolstered
- Ukrainian resistance holding up elsewhere
- UA air force still flying
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1497754623729451009/photo/1
At least those supporting them recognise that Ukrainians have agency in the decision.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
20 years in prison if you send any aid whatsoever to the Ukrainian state or any organization abroad or its representatives that is “directed against Russian security.” “Financial, logistical, consulting, or other assistance.” That is what Russia’s federal govt just threatened.
https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1497896194307153922
'Fifth of UK's Syrian refugees settled in Scotland'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47597458
Zelensky is a Russian on @YBarddCwsc ’s criteria.
[Translated from Russian]
Last night I asked Alexander Lukashenko to ensure the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of his country. The brotherhood between the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples should push Belarus to refuse to become a vassal and an actual accomplice of Russia in the war against Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1497897720937332739
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
I used a number from wiki that gives the (rough) proportion of ethnic Russians.
Of course, if we had the results of a plebiscite, we would have accurate data with which to work.
🇺🇦 Ukrainian Glory Forever 🇺🇦
@r_netsec
Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov said negotiations can begin once Russia “restores democratic order” in Ukraine.
As Russian troops neared Kyiv, Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko was asked to respond.
He had a pretty clear answer.
https://twitter.com/r_netsec/status/1497797398898176000
Trying to stop this wretched man *before* he starts trying to dismember NATO is a less dangerous option than waiting until we're forced to fight him directly.
99% English speaking Scotland only just voted the other way. Language isn't everything.
She has a gun in her home to defend her family inc 3 children (one just months old)
Despite the attempted siege, Lesia said there was more positivity. Here's one eg of black humour being shared: https://twitter.com/lesiavasylenko/status/1497882833653620736
My words aren't rendered worthless because I'm not personally under arms.
Took a little drive round Kharkiv. Current situation:
- streets deserted
- some kind of fight/operation still going on around Shevchenko avenue/Hidropark.
- city in Ukrainian hands
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1497895289465749504
https://twitter.com/RolandOliphant/status/1497893768565035012
Like the Crimea, which has a Russian majority, is absorbed into some gigantic (& arbitrary) region of south/central Ukraine.
If you want to demonstrate that there was no appetite for Scottish independence, you could join Scotland with NE England and NW England and carry out a poll.
It would give you the misleading result you want.
Firstly every single region of Ukraine voted for independence in 1991 - including Crimea. How would you suggest they had separated out little pockets of Crimea to give to the Russians?
Secondly Putin is not interested in just the majority Russian areas. He wants the whole of Ukraine. He would still have launched this war and we would still be in the same place.
The names of thousands of companies which benefited from billions of pounds of Covid-19 loans schemes are to be kept confidential under new government rules to only publish state subsidies of £500,000 or more.
The higher threshold has been brought in after Brexit despite warnings that it may hamper the fight against fraudsters...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/26/names-of-firms-given-huge-covid-loans-will-be-secret?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other