The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
I mean, we could try doing it by leafleting and asking nicely. Like “no nuclear zones” set up by city councils.
The World's End pub in Camden is still a nuclear free zone, IIRC
Damn, there was me thinking of booking a table and taking my suitcase nuke with me.
To do an NFZ you have to be prepared to bomb and kill Russians (and probably civilians by accident) on the Russian side of the border because their air defences have to be suppressed to the make the NFZ viable.
So 'NFZ' is really just shorthand for war with Russia.
Yet there seems to be a groundswell of opinion, mostly non military, that we should do it anyway.
Various journalists are jumping on the bandwagon and simply dismissing the risk.
It’s lunacy. They need to read that piece by Fiona Hill.
A lot of people who are in favour of a NFZ over Ukraine would also be against war with Russia and unwilling to fight in it.
Mr. Age, China may also be taking notes on how to both withstand and inflict economic damage. I think the economic scale and degree of integration globally means they're way less likely to either impose or suffer them from the West generally, as Russia now is, but on a smaller, local scale that may be otherwise.
Yes - good points.
One of the interesting things about this conflict is that it takes cancel culture to a whole new level. Russia has been cancelled, and it may actually be this that does Putins regime in. Interesting times.
We’ve deployed the millennial weapon of choice…. and it worked…..
And may be the single feature of this episode that concentrates Chinese minds, as well. China values being respected on the world stage considerably.
That is a very good point.
The loss of face that Putin/Russia are suffering now is appalling from a Chinese perspective.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
So the Ukrainian journalist yesterday beautifully summed up the poverty of Johnson's response to the crisis, which can essentially be summed up as PR for the domestic audience.
The usual rhetoric and grandstanding but action lagging far far behind, especially with regard to individual Russian wealth held in the UK.
Is it 3 oligarchs or 5 that we're directly sanctioning? Or have a few more been added.
Freeze all Russian owned assets unless clearly aligned with the opposition, place property in escrow pending a resolution to the crisis. Intern family members, why not? They might benefit from a taste of one of Priti's immigration centres.
And let’s abandon due process, the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty while we are at it
We can sanction whomsoever we like. Nor is internment a new device - it was good enough for WW2. Our Government's response has been weak.
There is evidence to support sanctions. You are advocating a collective guilt approach, which is immoral, unethical and counterproductive.
We are also not at war with Russia. De jure, at least. Which makes internment an inappropriate measure.
I know you are desperate to attack the UK government. But they’ve done well on Ukraine over an extended period.
That Ukrainian journalist didn't seem to think so. Because she had joined the dots. Tough on Russia, tough on the CAUSES of Russia. It's *that* extended period that I am most interested in, and to which I hope we will return after this crisis, God willing, abates.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
So the Ukrainian journalist yesterday beautifully summed up the poverty of Johnson's response to the crisis, which can essentially be summed up as PR for the domestic audience.
The usual rhetoric and grandstanding but action lagging far far behind, especially with regard to individual Russian wealth held in the UK.
Is it 3 oligarchs or 5 that we're directly sanctioning? Or have a few more been added.
Freeze all Russian owned assets unless clearly aligned with the opposition, place property in escrow pending a resolution to the crisis. Intern family members, why not? They might benefit from a taste of one of Priti's immigration centres.
And let’s abandon due process, the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty while we are at it
We can sanction whomsoever we like. Nor is internment a new device - it was good enough for WW2. Our Government's response has been weak.
You're either ignorant of what's going on or trolling, the government's response (like the response of all nations of the West now) has been very strong.
Just because we had internment in WW2 is not a justification to have it today. We also had the death penalty, conscription and rationing too.
Not to mention a rather silly interment policy - which interned Jewish refugees with German passports.
See the interesting history of Lord Lovat, and the foreign commando units he trained and led.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
History has accelerated; the impossible has become possible. Shifts that no one imagined two weeks ago are unfolding with incredible speed. However the war ends—and many scenarios are still imaginable—we already live in a world with fewer illusions.
Finally, Germans have understood that the lesson of their history is not that Germany must remain forever pacifist. The lesson is that Germany must defend democracy and fight the modern version of fascism in Europe when it emerges.
Platitudes about European “unity” and “solidarity” are beginning to have some meaning, along with “common foreign policy,” a phrase that, in the European Union, has until now been largely fiction. Europeans have also dropped, abruptly, some of their doubts about Ukraine’s membership in their institutions. From being a distant place, badly understood, it is now part of what people mean when they say Europe.
I am certain that the events of this week have changed not only the world’s perceptions of Ukraine, but Ukrainians’ perceptions of themselves...the Ukrainians have now put themselves at the heart of the story, and they know it.
Right now many Russians don’t even realize what is happening in Ukraine. And yet, there is a strong, consistent drumbeat of alternative information. What could happen in Russia if the story became better known, the details clearer?
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
F*** off back to Tory Hq you absolute braindead moron. A plank would know that it was F*** all to do with Abramovitch who would have little impact. Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
In the film Valkyrie, one of the touches that showed the producers had done their home work - the soldiers guarding Hitlers bunker in the forest in East Prussia were wearing fly mesh over their helmets and tucked into their uniforms.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
Good away win for the Foxes last night, and a rare clean sheet. Betting on both teams to score has been a good bet most weeks but cost me a purple drinking voucher last night. Still happy though.
Relegation scrap getting tight. I reckon Toon will pull clear, but Everton looking dicey.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
F*** off back to Tory Hq you absolute braindead moron. A plank would know that it was F*** all to do with Abramovitch who would have little impact. Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
F*** off back to Tory Hq you absolute braindead moron. A plank would know that it was F*** all to do with Abramovitch who would have little impact. Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
If Abramovitch is so utterly innocent why was his UK visa revoked in 2018 and he’s only been allowed to return once since?
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
If sanctions cause them to start to lose the war, then they will.
I know I keep saying this, but a concern is that Putin isn't playing 6D chess.
If he is deep into Greater Russian Nationalism, he may well believe that the West will use a defeat and his deposition to break up Russia and reduce it to a vassal state. So he has to survive to save Russia. At all costs...
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
In the film Valkyrie, one of the touches that showed the producers had done their home work - the soldiers guarding Hitlers bunker in the forest in East Prussia were wearing fly mesh over their helmets and tucked into their uniforms.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
The black fly in Maine were beyond vicious. Nicknamed Maine's State Bird, they are tiny but the bites I had - through a deet-soaked hat - came up on my scalp like eggs. Give me the midge any day!
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
How does allowing Abramovich to sell Chelsea and stash the loot in a friendly tax haven avoid bank crashes?
Like the US there is a 30 day run-in on sanctions. This is primarily to avoid issues with the sanctioned banks. Abramovich benefits from this because it would be wrong to treat two sanctioned parties differently.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
F*** off back to Tory Hq you absolute braindead moron. A plank would know that it was F*** all to do with Abramovitch who would have little impact. Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
If Abramovitch is so utterly innocent why was his UK visa revoked in 2018 and he’s only been allowed to return once since?
It wasn't. It expired and he was dubious about getting a new one post-salisbury. He now has an Israeli passport and can come and go as he likes as far as visas are concerned
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
In the film Valkyrie, one of the touches that showed the producers had done their home work - the soldiers guarding Hitlers bunker in the forest in East Prussia were wearing fly mesh over their helmets and tucked into their uniforms.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
How does allowing Abramovich to sell Chelsea and stash the loot in a friendly tax haven avoid bank crashes?
Like the US there is a 30 day run-in on sanctions. This is primarily to avoid issues with the sanctioned banks. Abramovich benefits from this because it would be wrong to treat two sanctioned parties differently.
Chelsea was always Abramovitch's emergency fund beyond the reach of Putin and his corrupt legal system. The fact that he now has to realise this emergency fund to give access to resources in the west shows how bad things are getting for the oligarchs. The problem for him is where can he put the proceeds without risk of them being frozen?
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
In the film Valkyrie, one of the touches that showed the producers had done their home work - the soldiers guarding Hitlers bunker in the forest in East Prussia were wearing fly mesh over their helmets and tucked into their uniforms.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
The black fly in Maine were beyond vicious. Nicknamed Maine's State Bird, they are tiny but the bites I had - through a deet-soaked hat - came up on my scalp like eggs. Give me the midge any day!
The sandflies on the West Coast of the South Island are quite something too. There you can by insect repellent in gallon jugs.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
Britain accused creating massive loophole in sanctions designed to hobble Putin’s regime by granting Russia’s second biggest bank #VTB an “absurd” month-long examption before assets are frozen. via @cahalmilmo
Funny how no-one complained when the US did exactly the same. The UK is falling into line with the US's timescale.
The purpose of the 30-day lead-in for sanctions is not to enable Russians to "shift assets", but to prevent a 2008-style financial crisis. It gives financial institutions time to unwind their Russian positions without defaulting and find alternative sources of funding. https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1498799522142560259?s=21
It’s almost as if many of the UK media are more interested in bashing their own government, than they are about good research and accurate reporting.
Do they understand what’s meant by a no-fly zone yet?
They think that's what the Americans use SWAT teams for.
Your argument has jokes it it; you’ll be on sticky ground if you aren’t careful
No flies on you.
No mig zone or no midge zone?
Deploying Scottish midges to kidnap Russian soldiers would definitely be biological warfare.
Not sure about their kidnapping pedigree, but they are extremely talented at annoying people. I have seen them drive some people to the edge of madness.
In the film Valkyrie, one of the touches that showed the producers had done their home work - the soldiers guarding Hitlers bunker in the forest in East Prussia were wearing fly mesh over their helmets and tucked into their uniforms.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
Good to know when NATO forces enter Kaliningrad.
Now I am picturing an angry battle between NATO and Russian midges.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
'BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...'
Russia has responded to western economic sanctions with economic sanctions in Western companies.
Russia would respond to Western troops or jets in Ukraine with a military response, potentially even nuclear, as at that point in Putin's eyes we would then be at war with Russia
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
For all those fervently wishing to strike out at the Russian bear, there is a route to joining the Ukrainian forces, and even Liz Truss has encouraged you to do so. It's far more direct than British pilots being asked to shoot Russian planes out of the sky (and vice versa) over Ukraine on your behalf. No? Gammy leg? Wife wouldn't like it? Get a bit nervous around AK47s? Well maybe settle down a bit then.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
I think it is now a race between the destruction of Russian economy and the military defeat of Ukraine. If they can hold out for a few more weeks.....
The Russian economy is utterly dependent on imports for hi-tech and variety of other high end items. The total dollar value of these is not the issue - so much as they are not easily replaced. Without them, a number of thing will start to grind to a halt.
I have been told, for example, that certain crucial chemicals for running water purification are imported.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
For all those fervently wishing to strike out at the Russian bear, there is a route to joining the Ukrainian forces, and even Liz Truss has encouraged you to do so. It's far more direct than British pilots being asked to shoot Russian planes out of the sky (and vice versa) over Ukraine on your behalf. No? Gammy leg? Wife wouldn't like it? Get a bit nervous around AK47s? Well maybe settle down a bit then.
Not very helpful, as I think her comment was subsequently withdrawn, was it not?
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
They are losing only in the sense that their war justification, and original war aims, lie in waste. If they now lay siege to cities of millions, it's clear to the entire world that they are no more than nazis.
This wasn't intended to be Hitler invading Poland - the comparison made by those who say Putin's doing fine. That is how it has ended up.
(Edit - I realise that I should be replying to @DavidL Someone screwed up the block quotes, and I my attempt to repair them...)
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
Agreed, sadly. Ukraine is constructing a new foundation mythos for the nation but this comes at a huge cost, watered with the blood of innocents
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
For all those fervently wishing to strike out at the Russian bear, there is a route to joining the Ukrainian forces, and even Liz Truss has encouraged you to do so. It's far more direct than British pilots being asked to shoot Russian planes out of the sky (and vice versa) over Ukraine on your behalf. No? Gammy leg? Wife wouldn't like it? Get a bit nervous around AK47s? Well maybe settle down a bit then.
Not very helpful, as I think her comment was subsequently withdrawn, was it not?
I don't know, but I doubt she'll be stopping anyone getting there.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
His position at home is not impregnable any more than Putin's. I have no idea how Ukraine replaces a president, but presumably it can be done and the spirit may be that if he goes all Chamberlain they'll look for a Churchill.
Bad news is: Yuval Noah Harari on r4 yesterday saying Russia spends 11% GDP on defence. That just amounts to a ton of materiel, there's only so far you can claim thayt none of it works/the money has all been embezzled. Cards are stacked against Ukr.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
I think it is now a race between the destruction of Russian economy and the military defeat of Ukraine. If they can hold out for a few more weeks.....
The Russian economy is utterly dependent on imports for hi-tech and variety of other high end items. The total dollar value of these is not the issue - so much as they are not easily replaced. Without them, a number of thing will start to grind to a halt.
I have been told, for example, that certain crucial chemicals for running water purification are imported.
Good point on things like chemicals. The intangible imports are massive too. It’s dawning on your average Russian, that services from companies such as Visa, Mastercard, Apple and Google, have a significant effect on daily life.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
Agreed, sadly. Ukraine is constructing a new foundation mythos for the nation but this comes at a huge cost, watered with the blood of innocents
It's also, very sadly, providing decades (centuries?) more fuel for enmity between two neighboring countries.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
For all those fervently wishing to strike out at the Russian bear, there is a route to joining the Ukrainian forces, and even Liz Truss has encouraged you to do so. It's far more direct than British pilots being asked to shoot Russian planes out of the sky (and vice versa) over Ukraine on your behalf. No? Gammy leg? Wife wouldn't like it? Get a bit nervous around AK47s? Well maybe settle down a bit then.
Not very helpful, as I think her comment was subsequently withdrawn, was it not?
I don't know, but I doubt she'll be stopping anyone getting there.
Ukr is only taking those with military experience even from its own citizens. not enough rifles for randomers.
Big development on this story overnight as Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss confirms he and three other parties have been invited to make bids for Chelsea #cfc
Abramovich has been granted all the time he needs to disburse himself of physical assets in the UK. Why?
To avoid a bank crash
Idiot
Braindead insults of people who are right doesn't make them less right. It just shows you lashing out like a toddler because you don't understand what's happening.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
F*** off back to Tory Hq you absolute braindead moron. A plank would know that it was F*** all to do with Abramovitch who would have little impact. Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
If Abramovitch is so utterly innocent why was his UK visa revoked in 2018 and he’s only been allowed to return once since?
Nothing said about him other than the 1 month delay was nothing to do with him, read the posts. I wouldhave had him out years ago , we are where we are due to Tories accepting money from these roasters. All their assets should be confiscated and their puppets in the Tories exposed with them.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
Yes, it took 8 days for the Nazis to take the Brest fortress in the opening stages of Barbarossa, for example.
Logistics were a major drag on the German advance there too.
Mr. kle4, when I studied psychology, one of the myths dispensed with was the cowardice of bullies. Often, it's just someone in a strong position with a sadistic tendency.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
Agreed, sadly. Ukraine is constructing a new foundation mythos for the nation but this comes at a huge cost, watered with the blood of innocents
It's also, very sadly, providing decades (centuries?) more fuel for enmity between two neighboring countries.
Maybe Putin should have thought of that, before sending 100,000 troops over the border uninvited.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I'm not 'crying WWIII' - but NATO, an alliance of 30 countries, entering into direct armed conflict with Russia literally is WWIII.
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
For all those fervently wishing to strike out at the Russian bear, there is a route to joining the Ukrainian forces, and even Liz Truss has encouraged you to do so. It's far more direct than British pilots being asked to shoot Russian planes out of the sky (and vice versa) over Ukraine on your behalf. No? Gammy leg? Wife wouldn't like it? Get a bit nervous around AK47s? Well maybe settle down a bit then.
Not very helpful, as I think her comment was subsequently withdrawn, was it not?
I don't know, but I doubt she'll be stopping anyone getting there.
Interesting stuff from Kassianov, Putn's former PM, on R4 Today. He thinks that the indications that Germans may soon stop buying gas, as the last lifeline of foreign exchange, may bring about the end of Putin's regime fairly quickly, but by economic collapse followed by increasing protests from below in the upcoming days. According to him, as soon as weakness in the regime is more visible, hundreds of thousands will be out on the streets.
Its a schizophrenic time. Tallinn has no metro, so the City Council is checking underground carparks and world war two shelters to see if a public shelter network can be put together if needed. Busses and cars are driving 1200 km to pick up Ukrainian refugees and places are being found all over the country to host them. The Russian border is very busy. EU and other nationals evacuating, and quite a few Russians leaving too.
Johnson´s visit was rather overshadowed by Stoltenberg, who actually had something substantive to say rather than a flag waving exercise.
As the Russian high command commits war crimes, rumours reach us soldiers sitting in tanks with the engines running and so running out of fuel, and the missiles are being fired by troops a long way from the targets. Rumours of breakdowns and equipment failures. Belarusians forming a group under the white-red-white flag to push back Lukashenka´s invasion of Ukraine. Who knows how much is true? On the other hand the new equipment is increasing the strength of the Ukrainian forces every day. Unlimited money being deployed, even as the Russians default on debt and their financial system reaches the point of a no return collapse. Savage repression inside Russia, showing the utter desperation of the regime now.
Western analysis talking of weeks of fighting ahead, Although they also predicted that Ukraine would fall inside a week and here we are. A smallest glimmer of hope is that having invaded Ukraine in the name of Slavic brotherhood, the Russian Slavs may yet decide that the violence is pointless and their own leaders are the criminals. There is a gathering sense that the situation is building to a crescendo.
The figures are speculative but it is often quoted that the ratio of troops to civilians in a counter-insurgency control operation needs to be 20 troops per 1,000. Ukraine has a population of 44 million (quite apart from being huge); Russia will need 880,000 troops to match this ratio – about five times more than it has currently deployed.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
Do you have a military or intelligence background David?
I'm not having a pop. I'm just interested to know your level of expertise to make these points.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
Agreed, sadly. Ukraine is constructing a new foundation mythos for the nation but this comes at a huge cost, watered with the blood of innocents
It's also, very sadly, providing decades (centuries?) more fuel for enmity between two neighboring countries.
Maybe Putin should have thought of that, before sending 100,000 troops over the border uninvited.
Yes, of course he should have. He'd be a rare Russian Head of State that let that worry him though sadly.
Mr. kle4, when I studied psychology, one of the myths dispensed with was the cowardice of bullies. Often, it's just someone in a strong position with a sadistic tendency.
There is a fascinating tradition in many cultures that bad people are automatically cowards. See the Iliad, where the bravery is the measure of worthiness.
Reinhard Heydrich is in contention for the worst human in recent history - and he was physically brave.
She’s holding up, thanks for asking. Her father is safe, but extended family and friends are all over the place in both countries, with the full spectrum of views on the conflict.
Interesting stuff from Kassianov, Putn's former PM, on R4 Today. He thinks that the indications that Germans may soon stop buying gas, as the last lifeline of foreign exchange, may bring about the end of Putin's regime fairly quickly, but by economic collapse followed by increasing protests from below in the upcoming days. According to him, as soon as weakness in the regime is more visible, hundreds of thousands will be out on the streets.
We can hope.
And sending a large part of your military away to another country means they are not around to shoot protestors, even if they would.
Its a schizophrenic time. Tallinn has no metro, so the City Council is checking underground carparks and world war two shelters to see if a public shelter network can be put together if needed. Busses and cars are driving 1200 km to pick up Ukrainian refugees and places are being found all over the country to host them. The Russian border is very busy. EU and other nationals evacuating, and quite a few Russians leaving too.
Johnson´s visit was rather overshadowed by Stoltenberg, who actually had something substantive to say rather than a flag waving exercise.
As the Russian high command commits war crimes, rumours reach us soldiers sitting in tanks with the engines running and so running out of fuel, and the missiles are being fired by troops a long way from the targets. Rumours of breakdowns and equipment failures. Belarusians forming a group under the white-red-white flag to push back Lukashenka´s invasion of Ukraine. Who knows how much is true? On the other hand the new equipment is increasing the strength of the Ukrainian forces every day. Unlimited money being deployed, even as the Russians default on debt and their financial system reaches the point of a no return collapse. Savage repression inside Russia, showing the utter desperation of the regime now.
Western analysis talking of weeks of fighting ahead, Although they also predicted that Ukraine would fall inside a week and here we are. A smallest glimmer of hope is that having invaded Ukraine in the name of Slavic brotherhood, the Russian Slavs may yet decide that the violence is pointless and their own leaders are the criminals. There is a gathering sense that the situation is building to a crescendo.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
Do you have a military or intelligence background David?
I'm not having a pop. I'm just interested to know your level of expertise to make these points.
Battles are things we have all studied at some level in history lessons. As types of human interaction go they are comparatively straightforward. And David is pretty much in line with Lord Richards, former head of defence staff, yesterday.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
I think it is now a race between the destruction of Russian economy and the military defeat of Ukraine. If they can hold out for a few more weeks.....
The Russian economy is utterly dependent on imports for hi-tech and variety of other high end items. The total dollar value of these is not the issue - so much as they are not easily replaced. Without them, a number of thing will start to grind to a halt.
I have been told, for example, that certain crucial chemicals for running water purification are imported.
Sort of agree.
Much as we'd wish it otherwise, the Russians appear to have a massive superiority in forces and that will surely tell in time.
But, what happens if/when they gain control of Ukraine? The western sanctions are not going to be lifted anytime soon, so presumably the Russian economy will inevitably crash.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
All bullies are cowards.
Sadly not true.
Oh, I'd say it is, No?
Would you tell the Kray twins that?
Not to their face without a large amount of perspex between us, but that isn't really the point. They did seek to engender fear because they themselves were scared of something. Rivals, losing their empire etc.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
I think it is now a race between the destruction of Russian economy and the military defeat of Ukraine. If they can hold out for a few more weeks.....
The Russian economy is utterly dependent on imports for hi-tech and variety of other high end items. The total dollar value of these is not the issue - so much as they are not easily replaced. Without them, a number of thing will start to grind to a halt.
I have been told, for example, that certain crucial chemicals for running water purification are imported.
Sort of agree.
Much as we'd wish it otherwise, the Russians appear to have a massive superiority in forces and that will surely tell in time.
But, what happens if/when they gain control of Ukraine? The western sanctions are not going to be lifted anytime soon, so presumably the Russian economy will inevitably crash.
How does that play out?
I think it is a race to see which happens first - Russian economy crashes to the point of not being able to wage war vs Ukrainian defeat.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
All bullies are cowards.
Sadly not true.
As Theodore Dalrymple wrote in a recent article, the 9/11 attackers were many things, but they weren't cowards in the true sense of the word. Coward doesn't just mean "bad person".
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
They are losing only in the sense that their war justification, and original war aims, lie in waste. If they now lay siege to cities of millions, it's clear to the entire world that they are no more than nazis.
This wasn't intended to be Hitler invading Poland - the comparison made by those who say Putin's doing fine. That is how it has ended up.
(Edit - I realise that I should be replying to @DavidL Someone screwed up the block quotes, and I my attempt to repair them...)
Oh I completely agree with that. The starting fantasy was that this was rescuing a brother slav nation from the control of gangsters and American puppets. That is completely in ruins. This is now a much more conventional war of aggression against a fellow European nation, something we thought had ended in 1945.
Mad Vlad has really lost the place, what on earth can be achieved by this? Occupation of a country of 44m, with a huge diaspora who will keep opposition well funded, is almost certainly beyond them in the medium to longer term. The Soviet empire collapsed because controlling all these occupied countries proved beyond them. We would see a repeat unless they can persuade the majority of Ukranians to work with some pro Russian leadership. And that is looking more remote with every missile that flies.
But in the short term I still think Russia will win the conventional war.
Its a schizophrenic time. Tallinn has no metro, so the City Council is checking underground carparks and world war two shelters to see if a public shelter network can be put together if needed. Busses and cars are driving 1200 km to pick up Ukrainian refugees and places are being found all over the country to host them. The Russian border is very busy. EU and other nationals evacuating, and quite a few Russians leaving too.
Johnson´s visit was rather overshadowed by Stoltenberg, who actually had something substantive to say rather than a flag waving exercise.
As the Russian high command commits war crimes, rumours reach us soldiers sitting in tanks with the engines running and so running out of fuel, and the missiles are being fired by troops a long way from the targets. Rumours of breakdowns and equipment failures. Belarusians forming a group under the white-red-white flag to push back Lukashenka´s invasion of Ukraine. Who knows how much is true? On the other hand the new equipment is increasing the strength of the Ukrainian forces every day. Unlimited money being deployed, even as the Russians default on debt and their financial system reaches the point of a no return collapse. Savage repression inside Russia, showing the utter desperation of the regime now.
Western analysis talking of weeks of fighting ahead, Although they also predicted that Ukraine would fall inside a week and here we are. A smallest glimmer of hope is that having invaded Ukraine in the name of Slavic brotherhood, the Russian Slavs may yet decide that the violence is pointless and their own leaders are the criminals. There is a gathering sense that the situation is building to a crescendo.
Cicero, we really appreciate your updates from what is as near the theatre of war as any of us would want to be. Stay safe, stay hopeful.
That's one of the more complicated issues isn't it. Historically Kyiv/Kiev was an important city in Russia. We've discussed before, and not I think reached a conclusion, about what the borders of 'Ukraine' actually are, or should be. I remember from my stamp album maps, drawn before WWII, that Lviv/Lwow was actually well inside Poland. It's a matter for the folk who live wherever to decide what nationality or ethnic group they are, of course. Have the current Ukrainians ever been asked? AIUI the current borders were decided in the Kremlin.
Mr. kle4, when I studied psychology, one of the myths dispensed with was the cowardice of bullies. Often, it's just someone in a strong position with a sadistic tendency.
There is a fascinating tradition in many cultures that bad people are automatically cowards. See the Iliad, where the bravery is the measure of worthiness.
Reinhard Heydrich is in contention for the worst human in recent history - and he was physically brave.
Notwithstanding that, there are plenty of cowardly bullies. I suspect bullies are no more likely to be brave or cowardly than non-bullies.
@IshmaelZ "Bad news is: Yuval Noah Harari on r4 yesterday saying Russia spends 11% GDP on defence." World Bank says military expenditure is around 4% of GDP, similar to Ukraine.
I hate the “it’s all about us” tone of much internet commentary about the crisis but, dipping my toe in, the demands for a NFZ are not going to help Johnson. He can’t do it because the U.K. doesn’t alone have the resources and, well, WW3 but increasingly there are calls from the armchair generals for one. Ultimately, when Kyiv falls and this war turns into Syria redux, a lot of the blame for that will come from said Monday morning quarterbacks and fall on Johnson’s shoulders. He can’t really win.
As an ignoramus, are the Russians going for a siege of Kiev? I'm not sure how the inhabitants can be supplied with food or more impotantly can replenish their arms. They're surely not daft enough to go for hand-to-hand fighting.
@IshmaelZ "Bad news is: Yuval Noah Harari on r4 yesterday saying Russia spends 11% GDP on defence." World Bank says military expenditure is around 4% of GDP, similar to Ukraine.
4% of GDP, 11% of government expenditure.
Ukranian GDP an order of magnitude smaller than Russian GDP. $150bn vs $1,500bn.
Interesting stuff from Kassianov, Putn's former PM, on R4 Today. He thinks that the indications that Germans may soon stop buying gas, as the last lifeline of foreign exchange, may bring about the end of Putin's regime fairly quickly, but by economic collapse followed by increasing protests from below in the upcoming days. He thinks as soon as soon as weakness in the regime becomes more obvious, hundreds of thousands will be out on the streets.
One thing that has to be increasingly asked is what is Putin’s main objective now, namely (a) to destroy the Ukrainian state or (b) to stay in power.
While it looks like the Russians are making more advances, remember Putin is in a race against time. The longer this goes on, the more the sanctions bite, the more the reserves are run down, the more opposition grows and so forth. And the more those who backed him previously start to sweat. So Ukraine might not have to hang on for weeks, it might be a matter of days.
If Putin’s main focus now is (b), then what the Russians are doing now makes sense, namely hold off on an assault on Kiev which will take weeks, strengthen the position in the south and create a land connection between Crimea and the areas in the SE, and then try and negotiate from there. I doubt it will work but they may think the West is skittish about nuclear war breaking out and will persuade the Ukraine.
Three other thoughts:
1. I’m surprised how quickly the actual cities have fallen when Russian forces have reached them ie there doesn’t seem to be a Stalingrad-style defence. That may suggest the Ukrainians are trying to limit loss of life and / or not get locked down in attrition;
2. Someone posted a link earlier that had a link to estimated equipment losses by type. When it comes to things like tanks etc, most of the Ukrainian losses have been old T-64s whereas they have captured a large proportion of tanks lost. That suggests an element of keeping their equipment intact as much as possible;
3. If the Ukraine does get the fast track to the EU, it does change the dynamics for those in the occupied areas. The choice is now not Ukraine vs Russia, it’s being part of the EU vs Russia. Do many decide that’s not an attractive trade.
Mr. kle4, when I studied psychology, one of the myths dispensed with was the cowardice of bullies. Often, it's just someone in a strong position with a sadistic tendency.
There is a fascinating tradition in many cultures that bad people are automatically cowards. See the Iliad, where the bravery is the measure of worthiness.
Reinhard Heydrich is in contention for the worst human in recent history - and he was physically brave.
The Iliad is a bit of an outlier because it feels as if making war is the only good to which anyone aspires; there is no sense that if Troy hadn't happened all the aristos would be sitting at home living peacefully off the produce of their own estates and being good farmers rather than good warriors. Or rather there is, but it is made explicit by Glaucus to Sarpedon or v.v. that the only route to the peacetime goodies is by being in the forefront of the fighting.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
The trouble with a no fly zone is its name. It sounds like to most people a green initiative cooked up by Greta thurnberg. Not mutually assured destruction.
Indeed. It’s something that sounds peaceful, but very much isn’t.
As our resident retired military pilot points out, preventing the Russians from flying in Ukraine means taking out their air defences on the ground, then aggressively patrolling the airspace ourselves.
Those advocating a no fly zone should recognise it would be far more logical, and probably less risky, to bomb the massive convoy on the way to Kyiv, without the massive effort required to establish air supremacy.
It would still be starting WWIII.
BTW, I am not advocating a no-fly zone - simply because I doubt it would meet the objectives (see my earlier post).
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
It is a real risk, that a collapsing Russian regime holds. The risk of this all going nuclear exists perhaps at 5% or so at present, but the consequences for the world are disastrous. A defeated Putin is as dangerous as a victorious one.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
Perhaps when people talk of Russia winning or losing it means different things to different people. Does it mean doing relatively better than Ukraine? Or will end the war in a better place than before the war? Or sustainably achieve their military objectives?
Yes, in the short term they can further progress operations in Ukraine and Ukraine will be worse hit, maybe even divided up. But, no, they wont be in a better place after the war than before the decision was made. And no, they won't be able to sustainably hold Kiev or sustainably support a puppet regime there.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
All bullies are cowards.
Sadly not true.
As Theodore Dalrymple wrote in a recent article, the 9/11 attackers were many things, but they weren't cowards in the true sense of the word. Coward doesn't just mean "bad person".
I would agree there, but they weren't bullies in the classic sense of the word. I've always had a bully down as someone who cultivates fear in others over a long period. This could be verbal or psychological as well as physical. Putin's Russia (with its neighbours) is a classic bully.
She’s holding up, thanks for asking. Her father is safe, but extended family and friends are all over the place in both countries, with the full spectrum of views on the conflict.
I heard the World at One today. Heartbreaking. I know people become inured to the human consequences of this but it is a necessary listen.
Same watching Newsnight.
Personally I've gone from WATO / Today, which now seem to me to consist of yesterday's stories wrt Ukraine with added tabloid-style emoto-populism, to the BBC World service, the running news on Sky (yes, I am surprised), and a few direct feeds, and a few current affairs programmes.
eg the "40 mile convoy to surround Kyiv" which was already reported a day before, and also reported as very fragmented. Yet the UK print media, and some broadcast, were funny breathless stories about it a day later. Looking forward to "From our own Correspondent", which gives reporters a bit more space.
I've just been listening to an excellent 20 minute item on Business Daily on "Russian Money in London", which will be available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1jpy
I've not seen much useful in mainstream newspapers, outside reports from specialist correspondents.
I think the accurate Guido gibe from a number of years ago is "Mediasaurus".
I can't comment on Newsnight, as I have not been watching it.
One aspect of daily BBC I commend is much of the on the ground coverage, though I find the attempts to make it relevant by adding emotional narratives a bit much. I think the first one I noticed doing that was Orla Guerin in the M.E. a number of years ago now.
One aspect I deprecate is the fairly constant presenter-drivelling about "a new age", "we are living in a new era", "this is unprecedented", "the people of Kviv never thought this could happen" is out-of-touch journalists so far up their own anuses that all they can smell is their own BS. They damn well knew it could happen because they have been victims of war for a long time.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I think your premise is faulty. I think many would like an outright Ukrainian victory and certainly a few predicting it, but expectations generally acknowledge Russia out matches them militarily. Resisting as long as possible is a worthy goal as Putin's resources are not infinite.
As to how long they should do so, entirely up to the defenders. Drawn out resistance has an immediate cost but if they'd rather that than trust to the mercy of Putin in occupation...
I do think that the problems and challenges Russian forces have faced are being massively overstated this morning. Personally, I blame the 24 hour news cycle but the only wars in history that have moved fast enough for that is when the enemy has been pulverised from the air first and are massively outgunned by superior tech.
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
Do you have a military or intelligence background David?
I'm not having a pop. I'm just interested to know your level of expertise to make these points.
The view of Dannatt (former Army head) on R4 last night was that Ukraine had done amazingly well in the first week but had now shot their bolt in terms of conventional fighting, because they weren't attacking the obvious target of the long convoy. That didn't mean it would be easy for the Russians to take the cities, so it could be a long story.
I suppose what they may do is continue to target infrastructure, sometimes with warnings to civilians in advance as a figleaf of consideration, and hope that brings about a deal, perhaps on the lines we've discussed here - concede neutrality and regional government for the east in exchnage for Russian withdrawal. Zelensky has cover politically for making a deal since he's asked for a no-fly zone and it's been refused - he can reasonably say to his domestic ultra-nationalist critics that it didn't leave much option.
But does Putin want one? I do worry that we've driven sanctions to the maximum already, leaving little incentive for Putin not to go the whole hog and simply occupy the country. It'd be quite mad to want to occupy an entire, largely hostile, country, but thinking Putin wasn't mad is what made me think he wouldn't invade at all, so who knows?
Interesting stuff from Kassianov, Putn's former PM, on R4 Today. He thinks that the indications that Germans may soon stop buying gas, as the last lifeline of foreign exchange, may bring about the end of Putin's regime fairly quickly, but by economic collapse followed by increasing protests from below in the upcoming days. He thinks as soon as soon as weakness in the regime becomes more obvious, hundreds of thousands will be out on the streets.
One thing that has to be increasingly asked is what is Putin’s main objective now, namely (a) to destroy the Ukrainian state or (b) to stay in power.
While it looks like the Russians are making more advances, remember Putin is in a race against time. The longer this goes on, the more the sanctions bite, the more the reserves are run down, the more opposition grows and so forth. And the more those who backed him previously start to sweat. So Ukraine might not have to hang on for weeks, it might be a matter of days.
If Putin’s main focus now is (b), then what the Russians are doing now makes sense, namely hold off on an assault on Kiev which will take weeks, strengthen the position in the south and create a land connection between Crimea and the areas in the SE, and then try and negotiate from there. I doubt it will work but they may think the West is skittish about nuclear war breaking out and will persuade the Ukraine.
Three other thoughts:
1. I’m surprised how quickly the actual cities have fallen when Russian forces have reached them ie there doesn’t seem to be a Stalingrad-style defence. That may suggest the Ukrainians are trying to limit loss of life and / or not get locked down in attrition;
2. Someone posted a link earlier that had a link to estimated equipment losses by type. When it comes to things like tanks etc, most of the Ukrainian losses have been old T-64s whereas they have captured a large proportion of tanks lost. That suggests an element of keeping their equipment intact as much as possible;
3. If the Ukraine does get the fast track to the EU, it does change the dynamics for those in the occupied areas. The choice is now not Ukraine vs Russia, it’s being part of the EU vs Russia. Do many decide that’s not an attractive trade.
Mr. kle4, when I studied psychology, one of the myths dispensed with was the cowardice of bullies. Often, it's just someone in a strong position with a sadistic tendency.
Although surely if a strong position is shown to be suddenly and unexpectedly a weak one, it would make even a brave person pause and re-evaluate their options. So if a bully is in a strong position due to the perceived weakness of their victim and their victim strikes back, this might make the bully, in the words of Flower of Scotland, go home to think again.
Not sure if this applies to the situation in Ukraine, but coward or no, it's worth standing up to bullies. Regardless of psychology, it gets to a sense of justice.
After the first few days where we found ourselves cheering on each Ukrainian victory and marveled at the resistence the sad realization now that we’re watching the destruction of a nation .
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
I don't think Zelensky can surrender. The fight will go on, and it will be grim in the encircled cities for civilians. The Ukranian partisan style attacks on Russian convoys are hitting logistics and morale, but in a set piece battle, the Russian forces have the upper hand. Rather like Afghanistan in fact. There is no victory for Russia, and a Ukranian one isn't close either.
I have spent some time last night reading Russian nationalist accounts (the well versed "intellectual" ones, not normie Putin fans), and here is a quick summary of what they think:
@IshmaelZ "Bad news is: Yuval Noah Harari on r4 yesterday saying Russia spends 11% GDP on defence." World Bank says military expenditure is around 4% of GDP, similar to Ukraine.
4% of GDP, 11% of government expenditure.
Ukranian GDP an order of magnitude smaller than Russian GDP. $150bn vs $1,500bn.
Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h Just spoke to @albats who reassuringly says Putin won't launch a nuclear war, because, "Look at the size of the table he got out for Macron - does it look like someone who is willing to die in a nuclear war?"
That's probably one of the most perceptive comments I've read over this saga. Very very true.
All bullies are cowards.
Sadly not true.
Oh, I'd say it is, No?
Would you tell the Kray twins that?
Not to their face without a large amount of perspex between us, but that isn't really the point. They did seek to engender fear because they themselves were scared of something. Rivals, losing their empire etc.
Never actually met them, CR, but growing up in Hackney in the sixties it was impossible not to be aware of them.
They were psychopaths. They were not however cowards in any normal sense of the word. They were both in fact very good boxers. Cowards do not generally enter boxing rings.
Legend has it that they never lost a fight but that may say more about the judges than the twins, or their opponents.
She’s holding up, thanks for asking. Her father is safe, but extended family and friends are all over the place in both countries, with the full spectrum of views on the conflict.
All the best to her and them.
Thanks. Not an easy situation at all, and one that we never thought might happen.
Comments
The loss of face that Putin/Russia are suffering now is appalling from a Chinese perspective.
Its the same reason Biden's sanctions are identical.
See the interesting history of Lord Lovat, and the foreign commando units he trained and led.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-impossible-suddenly-became-possible/ar-AAUuaYy?ocid=msedgntp
History has accelerated; the impossible has become possible. Shifts that no one imagined two weeks ago are unfolding with incredible speed. However the war ends—and many scenarios are still imaginable—we already live in a world with fewer illusions.
Finally, Germans have understood that the lesson of their history is not that Germany must remain forever pacifist. The lesson is that Germany must defend democracy and fight the modern version of fascism in Europe when it emerges.
Platitudes about European “unity” and “solidarity” are beginning to have some meaning, along with “common foreign policy,” a phrase that, in the European Union, has until now been largely fiction. Europeans have also dropped, abruptly, some of their doubts about Ukraine’s membership in their institutions. From being a distant place, badly understood, it is now part of what people mean when they say Europe.
I am certain that the events of this week have changed not only the world’s perceptions of Ukraine, but Ukrainians’ perceptions of themselves...the Ukrainians have now put themselves at the heart of the story, and they know it.
Right now many Russians don’t even realize what is happening in Ukraine. And yet, there is a strong, consistent drumbeat of alternative information. What could happen in Russia if the story became better known, the details clearer?
Stick to posting your prewritten Tory shite propaganda and realise you are just a dense muppet with a fake name.
It would still be starting WWIII.
Apparently, there is a similar midge thing there, and if you didn't do that, standing watch would be impossible.
Relegation scrap getting tight. I reckon Toon will pull clear, but Everton looking dicey.
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...
I know I keep saying this, but a concern is that Putin isn't playing 6D chess.
If he is deep into Greater Russian Nationalism, he may well believe that the West will use a defeat and his deposition to break up Russia and reduce it to a vassal state. So he has to survive to save Russia. At all costs...
It’s going to get very grim in Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/hoanssolo/status/1498893081545957378?s=21
Another grim day in the world, sadly.
Telegraph headline.
I guess Trump will just lie and deny he ever praised Putin and called him a genius.
This all needs careful and co-ordinated diplomacy to finish, and to have a controlled de-escalation, but Putin needs to want de-escalation too, and we are not there yet.
The fall of Kherson is significant (though the Russians did reach it on day 1) and with Mariopol now encircled, there is Russian control of the Azov sea and also water supply of Crimea. Occupying and controlling might well prove difficult though.
There is no happy ending as much as we want there to be .
Questions are raised now . How long should Ukrainian forces resist , should the President remain in Kyiv , should he call an end to hostilities and surrender to spare further bloodshed.
I don’t know the answer but just seeing what others think on this .
There's a case for it (with which I disagree), but be clear that is what it is.
But people crying 'WWIII' (as some people have cried every time Russia's done sh*t over the last two decades) need to answer when they think Russia won't use such a threat to help them reach their aims.
I'm half-expecting Russia to start talking of a nuclear response to the economic sanctions...'
Russia has responded to western economic sanctions with economic sanctions in Western companies.
Russia would respond to Western troops or jets in Ukraine with a military response, potentially even nuclear, as at that point in Putin's eyes we would then be at war with Russia
What we are seeing here is a very highly motivated defence force with a very similar level of kit, topped up with significantly superior kit from NATO that has not been degraded before it is engaged. This was always going to be difficult but the Russians continue to make progress in the south with Kherson falling and the north where Kharkiv may well fall today or tomorrow. The Ukranians are making an excellent fight of it but the contention that Russia is losing seem very wide of the mark.
The Russian economy is utterly dependent on imports for hi-tech and variety of other high end items. The total dollar value of these is not the issue - so much as they are not easily replaced. Without them, a number of thing will start to grind to a halt.
I have been told, for example, that certain crucial chemicals for running water purification are imported.
(Morning all)
Closer to home, a couple of missiles landed on Zhytomyr, to the west of Kiev, last night. Thankfully still no sign of any Russians in that area yet.
If they now lay siege to cities of millions, it's clear to the entire world that they are no more than nazis.
This wasn't intended to be Hitler invading Poland - the comparison made by those who say Putin's doing fine. That is how it has ended up.
(Edit - I realise that I should be replying to @DavidL
Someone screwed up the block quotes, and I my attempt to repair them...)
Bad news is: Yuval Noah Harari on r4 yesterday saying Russia spends 11% GDP on defence. That just amounts to a ton of materiel, there's only so far you can claim thayt none of it works/the money has all been embezzled. Cards are stacked against Ukr.
Logistics were a major drag on the German advance there too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57504755
Its a schizophrenic time. Tallinn has no metro, so the City Council is checking underground carparks and world war two shelters to see if a public shelter network can be put together if needed. Busses and cars are driving 1200 km to pick up Ukrainian refugees and places are being found all over the country to host them. The Russian border is very busy. EU and other nationals evacuating, and quite a few Russians leaving too.
Johnson´s visit was rather overshadowed by Stoltenberg, who actually had something substantive to say rather than a flag waving exercise.
As the Russian high command commits war crimes, rumours reach us soldiers sitting in tanks with the engines running and so running out of fuel, and the missiles are being fired by troops a long way from the targets. Rumours of breakdowns and equipment failures. Belarusians forming a group under the white-red-white flag to push back Lukashenka´s invasion of Ukraine. Who knows how much is true? On the other hand the new equipment is increasing the strength of the Ukrainian forces every day. Unlimited money being deployed, even as the Russians default on debt and their financial system reaches the point of a no return collapse. Savage repression inside Russia, showing the utter desperation of the regime now.
Western analysis talking of weeks of fighting ahead, Although they also predicted that Ukraine would fall inside a week and here we are. A smallest glimmer of hope is that having invaded Ukraine in the name of Slavic brotherhood, the Russian Slavs may yet decide that the violence is pointless and their own leaders are the criminals. There is a gathering sense that the situation is building to a crescendo.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/02/kremlin-wont-admit-has-already-lost/
I'm not having a pop. I'm just interested to know your level of expertise to make these points.
Reinhard Heydrich is in contention for the worst human in recent history - and he was physically brave.
And sending a large part of your military away to another country means they are not around to shoot protestors, even if they would.
I'll be raising a glass to you tonite.
Hea tervis
Much as we'd wish it otherwise, the Russians appear to have a massive superiority in forces and that will surely tell in time.
But, what happens if/when they gain control of Ukraine? The western sanctions are not going to be lifted anytime soon, so presumably the Russian economy will inevitably crash.
How does that play out?
Mad Vlad has really lost the place, what on earth can be achieved by this? Occupation of a country of 44m, with a huge diaspora who will keep opposition well funded, is almost certainly beyond them in the medium to longer term. The Soviet empire collapsed because controlling all these occupied countries proved beyond them. We would see a repeat unless they can persuade the majority of Ukranians to work with some pro Russian leadership. And that is looking more remote with every missile that flies.
But in the short term I still think Russia will win the conventional war.
I remember from my stamp album maps, drawn before WWII, that Lviv/Lwow was actually well inside Poland.
It's a matter for the folk who live wherever to decide what nationality or ethnic group they are, of course. Have the current Ukrainians ever been asked? AIUI the current borders were decided in the Kremlin.
World Bank says military expenditure is around 4% of GDP, similar to Ukraine.
Ukranian GDP an order of magnitude smaller than Russian GDP. $150bn vs $1,500bn.
Bullying and bravery also makes me think of Oda Nobunaga and Akechi Mitsuhide.
While it looks like the Russians are making more advances, remember Putin is in a race against time. The longer this goes on, the more the sanctions bite, the more the reserves are run down, the more opposition grows and so forth. And the more those who backed him previously start to sweat. So Ukraine might not have to hang on for weeks, it might be a matter of days.
If Putin’s main focus now is (b), then what the Russians are doing now makes sense, namely hold off on an assault on Kiev which will take weeks, strengthen the position in the south and create a land connection between Crimea and the areas in the SE, and then try and negotiate from there. I doubt it will work but they may think the West is skittish about nuclear war breaking out and will persuade the Ukraine.
Three other thoughts:
1. I’m surprised how quickly the actual cities have fallen when Russian forces have reached them ie there doesn’t seem to be a Stalingrad-style defence. That may suggest the Ukrainians are trying to limit loss of life and / or not get locked down in attrition;
2. Someone posted a link earlier that had a link to estimated equipment losses by type. When it comes to things like tanks etc, most of the Ukrainian losses have been old T-64s whereas they have captured a large proportion of tanks lost. That suggests an element of keeping their equipment intact as much as possible;
3. If the Ukraine does get the fast track to the EU, it does change the dynamics for those in the occupied areas. The choice is now not Ukraine vs Russia, it’s being part of the EU vs Russia. Do many decide that’s not an attractive trade.
Yes, in the short term they can further progress operations in Ukraine and Ukraine will be worse hit, maybe even divided up. But, no, they wont be in a better place after the war than before the decision was made. And no, they won't be able to sustainably hold Kiev or sustainably support a puppet regime there.
To me that is Russia losing.
eg the "40 mile convoy to surround Kyiv" which was already reported a day before, and also reported as very fragmented. Yet the UK print media, and some broadcast, were funny breathless stories about it a day later. Looking forward to "From our own Correspondent", which gives reporters a bit more space.
I've just been listening to an excellent 20 minute item on Business Daily on "Russian Money in London", which will be available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1jpy
I've not seen much useful in mainstream newspapers, outside reports from specialist correspondents.
I think the accurate Guido gibe from a number of years ago is "Mediasaurus".
I can't comment on Newsnight, as I have not been watching it.
One aspect of daily BBC I commend is much of the on the ground coverage, though I find the attempts to make it relevant by adding emotional narratives a bit much. I think the first one I noticed doing that was Orla Guerin in the M.E. a number of years ago now.
One aspect I deprecate is the fairly constant presenter-drivelling about "a new age", "we are living in a new era", "this is unprecedented", "the people of Kviv never thought this could happen" is out-of-touch journalists so far up their own anuses that all they can smell is their own BS. They damn well knew it could happen because they have been victims of war for a long time.
Rant over. I'd love some recommendations.
As to how long they should do so, entirely up to the defenders. Drawn out resistance has an immediate cost but if they'd rather that than trust to the mercy of Putin in occupation...
I suppose what they may do is continue to target infrastructure, sometimes with warnings to civilians in advance as a figleaf of consideration, and hope that brings about a deal, perhaps on the lines we've discussed here - concede neutrality and regional government for the east in exchnage for Russian withdrawal. Zelensky has cover politically for making a deal since he's asked for a no-fly zone and it's been refused - he can reasonably say to his domestic ultra-nationalist critics that it didn't leave much option.
But does Putin want one? I do worry that we've driven sanctions to the maximum already, leaving little incentive for Putin not to go the whole hog and simply occupy the country. It'd be quite mad to want to occupy an entire, largely hostile, country, but thinking Putin wasn't mad is what made me think he wouldn't invade at all, so who knows?
Not sure if this applies to the situation in Ukraine, but coward or no, it's worth standing up to bullies. Regardless of psychology, it gets to a sense of justice.
I have spent some time last night reading Russian nationalist accounts (the well versed "intellectual" ones, not normie Putin fans), and here is a quick summary of what they think:
https://twitter.com/y_akopov/status/1498923100653633536?s=21
TLDR: delusion extends far beyond the regime, even among “the well informed”.
My point stands, lorra money.
They were psychopaths. They were not however cowards in any normal sense of the word. They were both in fact very good boxers. Cowards do not generally enter boxing rings.
Legend has it that they never lost a fight but that may say more about the judges than the twins, or their opponents.