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?
Historically, the Russians do a fine line in revolution....
Trouble is, the kleptocracy are very few in number. They have bought their henchmen to rule by fear. Now, when the money runs out to pay those henchmen, they aren't going to be manning the barricades themselves.
Senior US defense official tells reporters that Russia's 40-mile convoy, advancing on Kyiv, remains where it did yesterday because of: -Ukrainian resistance -Fuel sustainment problems -Running out of food -And the Russians may be regrouping, rethinking, and reevaluating"
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.
I deleted the post as it seems there was some confusion between the university building and the police headquarters, and I try to post only stuff which seems credible. For other reports, it seems the two buildings were opposite each other, and both attacked.
You're right it being complicated. Regarding the universities in the early Russian empire, at one point, the majority of the students in 'Russia' were Polish speakers. Putin's ideas of history have about as much validity as Hitler's about race.
Mr. Malmesbury, aye. It's like believing ugly people are more likely to be evil or criminals.
Bullying and bravery also makes me think of Oda Nobunaga and Akechi Mitsuhide.
The Japanese Samurai banged on about their bravery - while leaving in the language a phrase for "checking ones sword is sharp on the neck of a passing peasant".....
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?
No. Some might say bullying is inherently cowardly but not all bullies are personally or physically cowardly in the sense meant. They won't all back down if you stand up to them, they won't all be easily intimidated by someone stronger, they might well actually prove brave and bold as well as being awful people.
@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.
Well yes, absolute figure are more relevant than proportions in this context.
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:
TLDR: delusion extends far beyond the regime, even among “the well informed”.
That sounds about right. Life will be wonderful.
The Russian MSM is still parroting the line about this all being a peacekeeping mission in Donetsk and Luhansk. They are not seeing pictures of bombs going off in Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson.
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.
No, the Russian invasion is doing that, not the Ukrainian defence. 🙄
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Mr. Malmesbury, to be fair, Christendom had the Three Estates, even though the archers (those who work) were rather more powerful on the battlefield than the knights (those who fight).
Senior US defense official tells reporters that Russia's 40-mile convoy, advancing on Kyiv, remains where it did yesterday because of: -Ukrainian resistance -Fuel sustainment problems -Running out of food -And the Russians may be regrouping, rethinking, and reevaluating"
That convoy can’t move forward, because Ukranians are still holding the area in front of it and Russians don’t want to blow up the road.
There’s not many roads left between where they are and Kiev - there’s lots of rivers in the area, and almost all the bridges that cross them have been taken out by the locals.
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.
All you do is insult people. Literally all of your posts are ad hominem. Every single one. I feel desperately sorry for you. I mean that genuinely. You are a seriously damaged individual.
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?
I haven't got anything precise on that, but I note 1 - that it has been essentially not moving, and 2 - that reported approaches to Kyiv are on 'multiple axes' so that there is a risk in focussing on one target 20-50 miles away. Is there a risk of forces being isolated from Kyiv?
AIUI one core strategy has been to attack supporting logistics as heavily as armour itself.
Meanwhile, the scientific debate over the origins of Covid grinds on.
https://twitter.com/emmecola/status/1498633737411567619 I've had a closer look at the preprint recently published by @MichaelWorobey and others. Everybody knows that I have been skeptical about the market origin hypothesis and I sympathize with many "lab leakers". However, this time I am quite impressed. 1/
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.
I don't doubt that for a second. I just think our interpretation of cowardice in this context is a bit literal here. Of course every bully isn't secretly Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen - otherwise they wouldn't be able to bully successfully. But what I am saying is that the act of cultivating fear which is the hallmark of a bully is one which comes from a need to secure one's position against a feared alternative. If they were not afraid, there would be no need to bully.
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.
The fear is that they will do what they did in Syria - stand off and bombard the city into submission.
Senior US defense official tells reporters that Russia's 40-mile convoy, advancing on Kyiv, remains where it did yesterday because of: -Ukrainian resistance -Fuel sustainment problems -Running out of food -And the Russians may be regrouping, rethinking, and reevaluating"
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?
So that's Dannatt and Richards on the same page
Over-celebration of Ukraine's apparent success brings Walpole to mind, sadly: “They may ring their bells now, before long they will be wringing their hands.”
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.
Yes Malcolm, President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. chose to have a thirty day lead in to the full sanctions because the Tories had accepted money from roasters ...
You're supposed to swallow your medicine not spit it out.
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Mr. Malmesbury, to be fair, Christendom had the Three Estates, even though the archers (those who work) were rather more powerful on the battlefield than the knights (those who fight).
Though the French had a look at having heavy* archers - and dropped the idea because of opposition from the nobility to having well armed inferiors....
*As in with bow "weights" that could realistically pierce armour of the period.
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.
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;
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.
What cities have fallen?
Allegedly Kherson, which is somewhere between the size of Derby and Nottingham in population.
(Which may explain why a 'Stalingrad siege' has not happened. Both Leningrad and Stalingrad were significantly larger at the time of their sieges.)
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:
TLDR: delusion extends far beyond the regime, even among “the well informed”.
Maybe they're right about no lasting insurgency after Ukraine falls. There isn't any to speak of in Chechnya with their puppet regime and those fuckers are very fighty.
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?
I think Putin is motivated by his historico-philosophical fantasy.
He wants the lands back that he believes historically belong to Russia, so not the whole of the present-day Ukraine.
Of course, Western Ukraine was never part of historic Russia. He wants the Black Sea coast and the lands east of the Dneiper.
The question is whether he could occupy and keep those parts of the country. That depends on how much the rest of Russia shares his vision & are willing to accept the pain.
I think Putin's view of history is quite common amongst Russians.
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.
Please enlighten me on which NATO country disagrees with Boris over no fly zones
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
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.
No, the Russian invasion is doing that, not the Ukrainian defence. 🙄
Nobody is blaming the Ukrainian defence, the original post just said 'Ukraine'. My response assumed this referred to the whole situation, not just the actions of the Ukrainians. When we refer to 'Iraq' it's short for the conflict, not for the actions of Saddam.
Rumors have it that Ukraine’s 95th Airborne broke through militant defenses in Horlivka in Donbas and even entered the Russian-occupied city. Later, Ukrainian troops retreated. Russian collaborators confirm the breakthrough."
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.
The fear is that they will do what they did in Syria - stand off and bombard the city into submission.
It does rather look that way.
Putin's forces failed to meet their early objectives and seem to have expected a roll over. They have instead met high levels of resistance and have galvanised support in the west, albeit on a largely economic front.
Logistically this is now a nightmare for Russian forces. They could be in for a long, long, long campaign: attempting to grind down their opponents, city by city, street by street, building by building. In one sense they probably won't win this because they will never eradicate the guerilla opposition.
So the only options left are probably annihilation through bombardment which may well escalate to thermobarbaric (thermobaric) and NBC.
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.
Not really. My father was in the army for 22 years and I grew up an army brat on various bases in Singapore, Germany and various bits of England. I discussed the practical difficulties of organising a war with him many times but he has sadly been dead for some years now. I am just expressing my view of what we are seeing in the media.
Clearly the likes of @Yokes and @Dura_Ace are far better placed than me to make these judgments, as are other contributors to the site with personal experience.
Meanwhile, the scientific debate over the origins of Covid grinds on.
https://twitter.com/emmecola/status/1498633737411567619 I've had a closer look at the preprint recently published by @MichaelWorobey and others. Everybody knows that I have been skeptical about the market origin hypothesis and I sympathize with many "lab leakers". However, this time I am quite impressed. 1/
This seems quite plausible. I have a very open mind on this issue. It seems a massive coincidence that it emerged in a city with a virology institute working on coronaviruses, for sure. On the other hand coincidences do exist, eg the Skripals being poisoned so close to Porton Down but it being unrelated to Porton Down. I have probably gone from 60% lab leak to 30%, but we will probably never know for sure.
Vladimir Putin doesn't care about Western sanctions, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said, as the Russian defence ministry warned that its people could "suffer greater than Europeans".
Mr Wallace revealed that in a meeting he had had with Russian officials "they were very clear that the Russian people could suffer greater than mine or greater than Europeans, that we can’t be harmed by sanctions".
“I remember saying at one stage, I don’t want Russian people to suffer any more than I want European or British people to suffer, that’s my view - I don’t want that."
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.
Please enlighten me on which NATO country disagrees with Boris over no fly zones
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
You miss my point spectacularly. Our narcissistic political culture will blame Johnson for this - ignoring the fact that he can’t do it without the others. The fact that the other leaders take the same line doesn’t matter. Johnson is to blame for that having implicitly peddled the line that we can do everything on our own.
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 exchange 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?
On Dannatt's point, it's far from clear that Ukraine have 'shot their bolt'. What's obvious is that their ability to manoeuvre is severely constrained - from where do you expect them to attack the convoy ?
Ukraine may be losing the conventional battle, but it seems some way from being over.
My fear is that Putin goes full Syria on the cities. He's started down that road in Kharkiv.
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.
Strange post MrEd.
1. Which cities have fallen?
3. Fast-track to EU could only happen after a resolution to this war that keeps Ukraine independent. That is not likely to be soon and not likely to leave Putin in charge of Russia or Russia in any serious position to object to Ukraine joining the EU. The idea of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU as the former falls is about as workable as Churchill's 1940 proposal of a union of Britain and France.
Clearly the likes of @Yokes and @Dura_Ace are far better placed than me to make these judgments, as are other contributors to the site with personal experience.
I'm guessing like everyone else, but with scintilla of personal experience and background knowledge.
If don't know I say so.
Motorcycle racing on the other hand... if I am talking about that you'd better be paying attention because that will be 24 carat solid gold information.
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.
Operation Banner peaked at 21,000 troops in the 1970s when Nothern Ireland had a population of about 1,500,000. I'm not saying the situation is the same, I'm just comparing how many troops were needed to tackle the terrorism 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. 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.
What cities have fallen?
Allegedly Kherson, which is somewhere between the size of Derby and Nottingham in population.
(Which may explain why a 'Stalingrad siege' has not happened. Both Leningrad and Stalingrad were significantly larger at the time of their sieges.)
That claim is contested. it's a bit previous to be declaring "No Stalingrad."
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
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.
Please enlighten me on which NATO country disagrees with Boris over no fly zones
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
You miss my point spectacularly. Our narcissistic political culture will blame Johnson for this - ignoring the fact that he can’t do it without the others. The fact that the other leaders take the same line doest matter. Johnson is to blame for that having implicitly peddled the line that we can do everything on our own.
I simply do not agree with you - there is no appetite for the RAF to confront Russian aircraft over Ukraine, and it is the agreed position of the entire opposition
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.
I deleted the post as it seems there was some confusion between the university building and the police headquarters, and I try to post only stuff which seems credible. For other reports, it seems the two buildings were opposite each other, and both attacked.
You're right it being complicated. Regarding the universities in the early Russian empire, at one point, the majority of the students in 'Russia' were Polish speakers. Putin's ideas of history have about as much validity as Hitler's about race.
I did wonder about the deletion, but there's not much one can do in such a situation! I didn't know that about the universities and the language used. Thanks; adds to the historical complications of course! However, any idea what was used for teaching? Polish? Latin? Or, perchance Greek?
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
In answer to your points my view, FWIW, is
1. Obviously. Completely barking.
2. We simply don't know. Views are being expressed either way. But it seems reasonable to assume they thought there would be token resistence and there isn't.
3. They have now captured 1 city in the South and seem on ther verge of capturing a larger city in the north.
4. Undoubtedly. But the logistical challenges of Russia fighting in Ukraine really should be significantly less than we had to cope with in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are not that far from home, they have an extensive road network to use and they showed the capacity to bring a lot of force to bear in the more challenging conditions of Syria quite recently. This should be relatively easy but it is not proving so. That may be because of poor planning but it might also be that the Ukranians have taken out far more resupply columns than they anticipated. Poor morale is clearly not helping them either.
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
The other issue is getting the satellites out of Russia. Going ahead with the launch may well be simplest way to do that.
EDIT: I think there was at least one one launch contracted with the Russians. After that, the next tranche of launches is already going to Indian launchers.
Further EDIT: There are 5 more planned after this one, in the original contract, all for this year. They won't be going ahead.
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.
What cities have fallen?
Allegedly Kherson, which is somewhere between the size of Derby and Nottingham in population.
(Which may explain why a 'Stalingrad siege' has not happened. Both Leningrad and Stalingrad were significantly larger at the time of their sieges.)
That claim is contested. it's a bit previous to be declaring "No Stalingrad."
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.
Yes I agree it's a race, but if the Russian economy collapses first, Ukraine is not defeated; if Ukraine is defeated first, the Russian economy still collapses, no?
Thus, I cannot see a way (beyond a very unlikely early and full Russian capitulation) that the Russian economy doesn't completely collapse. To the point that it would not be able to hold on to a defeated Ukraine anyway.
Russian troops are "operating in complete disarray", their morale sapped and "crying in combat", voice recordings of frontline soldiers obtained by a British intelligence company suggest.
Intercepted radio messages indicate that troops are refusing to obey central command orders, including to shell Ukrainian towns, while complaining bitterly about running out of supplies of food or fuel.
Separate video recordings show one group of Russian military walking away from the battle front and heading back across the border, having had enough.
In a text message to his mother, one soldier purportedly said: "The only thing I want right now is to kill myself."
So perhaps it is all imploding. though I have to say if I read similar in a Russian source I'd say obviously over egged propaganda, and presumably we do that too, so who knows? The "British intelligence co." could be a front for MI something.
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.
Strange post MrEd.
1. Which cities have fallen?
3. Fast-track to EU could only happen after a resolution to this war that keeps Ukraine independent. That is not likely to be soon and not likely to leave Putin in charge of Russia or Russia in any serious position to object to Ukraine joining the EU. The idea of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU as the former falls is about as workable as Churchill's 1940 proposal of a union of Britain and France.
A few people have suggested that only a full Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine will allow Ukraine to enter the EU, I'm not convinced. If this ends up in a stalemate where the Russians de facto occupy Donbas etc but Ukraine and the West doesn't recognise Russia's sovereignty there, I don't see why that would be a block on Ukraine entering the EU.
Cyprus managed to enter the EU afterall while half of Cyprus is still occupied (from Cyprus's perspective) by Turks. Why can't half of Ukraine enter the EU while half is still occupied by Russians?
Vladimir Putin doesn't care about Western sanctions, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said, as the Russian defence ministry warned that its people could "suffer greater than Europeans".
Mr Wallace revealed that in a meeting he had had with Russian officials "they were very clear that the Russian people could suffer greater than mine or greater than Europeans, that we can’t be harmed by sanctions".
“I remember saying at one stage, I don’t want Russian people to suffer any more than I want European or British people to suffer, that’s my view - I don’t want that."
Thats kind of the Russian Psyche though isn't it. As long as the enemy is suffering more than you, any suffering is worthwhile. Thats what got them through WW2 after all.
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:
TLDR: delusion extends far beyond the regime, even among “the well informed”.
Maybe they're right about no lasting insurgency after Ukraine falls. There isn't any to speak of in Chechnya with their puppet regime and those fuckers are very fighty.
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Dannatt
Richards
Lord Dannatt has not said what you are claiming he has said (third hand I note). I suggest you look again from the horse's mouth:
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country. So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives? It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them. Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked. On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
(a) the convoy isn't moving much (b) it isn't being attacked
Not really.
(A) It can't. They don't have the logistics and the land in front of them is blocked.
(B) While stationary it will be at its most heavily fortified and well defended.
Isn't the usual asymmetric way to attack a convoy to do so while it's moving when it enters a trap, not while it's stationary?
Why not use drones on it?
IANAE but I would imagine that while the convoy is stationary anti-drone defences will be at their highest. People who might otherwise by busy while moving the convoy could help defend against the drones.
Once the convoy is moving, defences inevitably fall down.
Such is my purely uneducated non-expert guess at least.
Vladimir Putin doesn't care about Western sanctions, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said, as the Russian defence ministry warned that its people could "suffer greater than Europeans".
Mr Wallace revealed that in a meeting he had had with Russian officials "they were very clear that the Russian people could suffer greater than mine or greater than Europeans, that we can’t be harmed by sanctions".
“I remember saying at one stage, I don’t want Russian people to suffer any more than I want European or British people to suffer, that’s my view - I don’t want that."
Thats kind of the Russian Psyche though isn't it. As long as the enemy is suffering more than you, any suffering is worthwhile. Thats what got them through WW2 after all.
Russian troops are "operating in complete disarray", their morale sapped and "crying in combat", voice recordings of frontline soldiers obtained by a British intelligence company suggest.
Intercepted radio messages indicate that troops are refusing to obey central command orders, including to shell Ukrainian towns, while complaining bitterly about running out of supplies of food or fuel.
Separate video recordings show one group of Russian military walking away from the battle front and heading back across the border, having had enough.
In a text message to his mother, one soldier purportedly said: "The only thing I want right now is to kill myself."
So perhaps it is all imploding. though I have to say if I read similar in a Russian source I'd say obviously over egged propaganda, and presumably we do that too, so who knows? The "British intelligence co." could be a front for MI something.
This is total contradiction of your earlier posts below where you have said Ukraine was falling!
I think it's time I take my leave of the armchair generals on here for a little while ...
I actually worked on Soviet invasion strategies but have the good sense to acknowledge that it was an awfully long time ago and that it does not now make me an expert. Perhaps those with an A level or GCSE in Cold War history should do the same.
(a) the convoy isn't moving much (b) it isn't being attacked
Not really.
(A) It can't. They don't have the logistics and the land in front of them is blocked.
(B) While stationary it will be at its most heavily fortified and well defended.
Isn't the usual asymmetric way to attack a convoy to do so while it's moving when it enters a trap, not while it's stationary?
Why not use drones on it?
IANAE but I would imagine that while the convoy is stationary anti-drone defences will be at their highest. People who might otherwise by busy while moving the convoy could help defend against the drones.
Once the convoy is moving, defences inevitably fall down.
Such is my purely uneducated non-expert guess at least.
Im not sure that the Russian military is that advanced that it could defend a 40 mile convoy against a drone attack
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1498951397928316933 The town of Irpin was a quiet bedroom community just west of Kyiv. In the past week Russia has transformed it into a war zone and reduced parts of it to rubble. Here’s what it looked like Wednesday morning.
Morning all. I'm gonzo busy with work so only dip in when I can. Whilst its heartening to see the Ukranians resist the bear and watch Putin's war plan fall apart, this is the point where the conflict gets the most dangerous.
Putin smashing Ukraine is bad for Ukraine. Putin not smashing Ukraine and instead having his own economy smashed and being turned into a global pariah is bad for all of us if he decides bigger / broader action is needed.
Thoughts are with @Sandpit , @Cicero and anyone else with direct involvement. My Romanian colleagues are over near Cluj mainly and report a lot of military traffic and increasing numbers of refugees, but otherwise Romania feels more secure thanks to NATO.
Providing this doesn't blow up into WWIII I think we are seeing a rapid reshaping of European geopolitics. That the EU and especially Germany have so rapidly shifted their approach to defence matters will only strengthen both the EU and the pull towards EU and NATO membership of all of the nations not currently fully protected.
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Dannatt
Richards
Lord Dannatt has not said what you are claiming he has said (third hand I note). I suggest you look again from the horse's mouth:
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country. So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives? It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them. Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked. On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
I have found no comments available by General David Richards so cannot verify the truth or falsehood of what you purport.
dearie me. The Mail piece is pure morale boosting puffery, and what he is quoted as saying in the Express is that the best Ukr can hope for is revenge in the ICC because Kyiv is toast. DR was on r4 PM yesterday, I imagine you can listen on a bbc website somewhere.
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
I wouldn't rule out 9 yet.
Bitcoin had been falling for months and while the past week has seen a recovery of sorts, led reportedly by Russians trying to get their money out of Russia, its even now still lower than it was at the start of the year.
Russian buying of bitcoin can only continue for so long and eventually people are going to want to convert it to dollars or something else which could lead to it collapsing again.
4 I don't understand, my understanding is they're far more likely to lose the House than the Senate? Seems odd to propose the opposite.
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.
Please enlighten me on which NATO country disagrees with Boris over no fly zones
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
You miss my point spectacularly. Our narcissistic political culture will blame Johnson for this - ignoring the fact that he can’t do it without the others. The fact that the other leaders take the same line doest matter. Johnson is to blame for that having implicitly peddled the line that we can do everything on our own.
I simply do not agree with you - there is no appetite for the RAF to confront Russian aircraft over Ukraine, and it is the agreed position of the entire opposition
I think, actually, BJ seems to have got the tone about as right as anyone could have. Quite properly the "No Fly Zone" option was ruled out pretty clearly.
The main blooper was the promise to provide aircraft - not a UK promise - which was then withdrawn a day or two later.
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Dannatt
Richards
Lord Dannatt has not said what you are claiming he has said (third hand I note). I suggest you look again from the horse's mouth:
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country. So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives? It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them. Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked. On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
I have found no comments available by General David Richards so cannot verify the truth or falsehood of what you purport.
dearie me. The Mail piece is pure morale boosting puffery, and what he is quoted as saying in the Express is that the best Ukr can hope for is revenge in the ICC because Kyiv is toast. DR was on r4 PM yesterday, I imagine you can listen on a bbc website somewhere.
Oh dear, you're quoting the Express?
The Heil is bad enough, but have you got a more credible source than the Express? Like the Sport, or RT?
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.
Strange post MrEd.
1. Which cities have fallen?
3. Fast-track to EU could only happen after a resolution to this war that keeps Ukraine independent. That is not likely to be soon and not likely to leave Putin in charge of Russia or Russia in any serious position to object to Ukraine joining the EU. The idea of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU as the former falls is about as workable as Churchill's 1940 proposal of a union of Britain and France.
A few people have suggested that only a full Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine will allow Ukraine to enter the EU, I'm not convinced. If this ends up in a stalemate where the Russians de facto occupy Donbas etc but Ukraine and the West doesn't recognise Russia's sovereignty there, I don't see why that would be a block on Ukraine entering the EU.
Cyprus managed to enter the EU afterall while half of Cyprus is still occupied (from Cyprus's perspective) by Turks. Why can't half of Ukraine enter the EU while half is still occupied by Russians?
Yes, and we have a very close precedent: West Germany. In fact a "West Ukraine" pumped with EU structural funding, with improved governance, reduced corruption and access to the EU and US markets next door to an impoverished, sclerotic, authoritarian "East Ukraine" would be a very handy show and tell for the world.
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.
True, although strictly geographically, Berlin is just as close.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1498951397928316933 The town of Irpin was a quiet bedroom community just west of Kyiv. In the past week Russia has transformed it into a war zone and reduced parts of it to rubble. Here’s what it looked like Wednesday morning.
And yet according to the official numbers at least, a single days covid deaths back in November has killed more civilians than the Russian invasion and bombing so far. Visually that seems quite incongruous considering the scale of the bombing and destruction.
Russian troops are "operating in complete disarray", their morale sapped and "crying in combat", voice recordings of frontline soldiers obtained by a British intelligence company suggest.
Intercepted radio messages indicate that troops are refusing to obey central command orders, including to shell Ukrainian towns, while complaining bitterly about running out of supplies of food or fuel.
Separate video recordings show one group of Russian military walking away from the battle front and heading back across the border, having had enough.
In a text message to his mother, one soldier purportedly said: "The only thing I want right now is to kill myself."
So perhaps it is all imploding. though I have to say if I read similar in a Russian source I'd say obviously over egged propaganda, and presumably we do that too, so who knows? The "British intelligence co." could be a front for MI something.
This is total contradiction of your earlier posts below where you have said Ukraine was falling!
I think it's time I take my leave of the armchair generals on here for a little while ...
I actually worked on Soviet invasion strategies but have the good sense to acknowledge that it was an awfully long time ago and that it does not now make me an expert. Perhaps those with an A level or GCSE in Cold War history should do the same.
Ciao.
Shit, I said *perhaps.* I am not omniscient, that is a market you have cornered here.
This is like your insistence as mysticrose that in emergencies airliners jettison every drop of fuel on board. They don't, and if you think about it it would be completely insane if they did, and converted themselves to giant gliders. But you were determined to be right vs the armchair pilots on the site.
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
It's an interesting one. Alix Cuthbertson is a Sky political reporter.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
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.
Strange post MrEd.
1. Which cities have fallen?
3. Fast-track to EU could only happen after a resolution to this war that keeps Ukraine independent. That is not likely to be soon and not likely to leave Putin in charge of Russia or Russia in any serious position to object to Ukraine joining the EU. The idea of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU as the former falls is about as workable as Churchill's 1940 proposal of a union of Britain and France.
A few people have suggested that only a full Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine will allow Ukraine to enter the EU, I'm not convinced. If this ends up in a stalemate where the Russians de facto occupy Donbas etc but Ukraine and the West doesn't recognise Russia's sovereignty there, I don't see why that would be a block on Ukraine entering the EU.
Cyprus managed to enter the EU afterall while half of Cyprus is still occupied (from Cyprus's perspective) by Turks. Why can't half of Ukraine enter the EU while half is still occupied by Russians?
Does Turkey have designs on rest of the island or is likely to launch assaults 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.
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Dannatt
Richards
Lord Dannatt has not said what you are claiming he has said (third hand I note). I suggest you look again from the horse's mouth:
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country. So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives? It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them. Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked. On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
I have found no comments available by General David Richards so cannot verify the truth or falsehood of what you purport.
dearie me. The Mail piece is pure morale boosting puffery, and what he is quoted as saying in the Express is that the best Ukr can hope for is revenge in the ICC because Kyiv is toast. DR was on r4 PM yesterday, I imagine you can listen on a bbc website somewhere.
Oh dear, you're quoting the Express?
The Heil is bad enough, but have you got a more credible source than the Express? Like the Sport, or RT?
No, I'm responding to somebody else quoting it. Is that hard for you to see? Has your browser messed up the quotes or did IQs drop sharply this morning in your neck of the woods?
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.
David as you are still around and haven't answered this I will take it that the answer to both is, 'no.'
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
Dannatt
Richards
Lord Dannatt has not said what you are claiming he has said (third hand I note). I suggest you look again from the horse's mouth:
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country. So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives? It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them. Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked. On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
I have found no comments available by General David Richards so cannot verify the truth or falsehood of what you purport.
dearie me. The Mail piece is pure morale boosting puffery, and what he is quoted as saying in the Express is that the best Ukr can hope for is revenge in the ICC because Kyiv is toast. DR was on r4 PM yesterday, I imagine you can listen on a bbc website somewhere.
Oh dear, you're quoting the Express?
The Heil is bad enough, but have you got a more credible source than the Express? Like the Sport, or RT?
No, I'm responding to somebody else quoting it. Is that hard for you to see? Has your browser messed up the quotes or did IQs drop sharply this morning in your neck of the woods?
Apologies, that wasn't clear from the way the quote was showing on my browser.
Morning all. I'm gonzo busy with work so only dip in when I can. Whilst its heartening to see the Ukranians resist the bear and watch Putin's war plan fall apart, this is the point where the conflict gets the most dangerous.
Putin smashing Ukraine is bad for Ukraine. Putin not smashing Ukraine and instead having his own economy smashed and being turned into a global pariah is bad for all of us if he decides bigger / broader action is needed.
Thoughts are with @Sandpit , @Cicero and anyone else with direct involvement. My Romanian colleagues are over near Cluj mainly and report a lot of military traffic and increasing numbers of refugees, but otherwise Romania feels more secure thanks to NATO.
Providing this doesn't blow up into WWIII I think we are seeing a rapid reshaping of European geopolitics. That the EU and especially Germany have so rapidly shifted their approach to defence matters will only strengthen both the EU and the pull towards EU and NATO membership of all of the nations not currently fully protected.
Sadly, it is clear that both Ukraine and Russia's economy are being smashed.
War has certainties - death, destruction, misery & chaos.
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.
Please enlighten me on which NATO country disagrees with Boris over no fly zones
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
You miss my point spectacularly. Our narcissistic political culture will blame Johnson for this - ignoring the fact that he can’t do it without the others. The fact that the other leaders take the same line doest matter. Johnson is to blame for that having implicitly peddled the line that we can do everything on our own.
I simply do not agree with you - there is no appetite for the RAF to confront Russian aircraft over Ukraine, and it is the agreed position of the entire opposition
It’s not the agreed position of the entire Tory Party or press. Not by a long shot.
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?
I think Putin is motivated by his historico-philosophical fantasy.
He wants the lands back that he believes historically belong to Russia, so not the whole of the present-day Ukraine.
Of course, Western Ukraine was never part of historic Russia. He wants the Black Sea coast and the lands east of the Dneiper.
The question is whether he could occupy and keep those parts of the country. That depends on how much the rest of Russia shares his vision & are willing to accept the pain.
I think Putin's view of history is quite common amongst Russians.
I think this is probably right. Unfortunately not sure what is going to prevent it. He's already annexed Crimea and turned Belarus into a puppet.
My belief FWIW is that Putin is most interested in his legacy. Sees himself in the tradition of Stalin and the more consequential Tsars.
He found Mother Russia: weak, diminished, despised.
Morning all. I'm gonzo busy with work so only dip in when I can. Whilst its heartening to see the Ukranians resist the bear and watch Putin's war plan fall apart, this is the point where the conflict gets the most dangerous.
Putin smashing Ukraine is bad for Ukraine. Putin not smashing Ukraine and instead having his own economy smashed and being turned into a global pariah is bad for all of us if he decides bigger / broader action is needed.
Thoughts are with @Sandpit , @Cicero and anyone else with direct involvement. My Romanian colleagues are over near Cluj mainly and report a lot of military traffic and increasing numbers of refugees, but otherwise Romania feels more secure thanks to NATO.
Providing this doesn't blow up into WWIII I think we are seeing a rapid reshaping of European geopolitics. That the EU and especially Germany have so rapidly shifted their approach to defence matters will only strengthen both the EU and the pull towards EU and NATO membership of all of the nations not currently fully protected.
Sadly, it is clear that both Ukraine and Russia's economy are being smashed.
War has certainties - death, destruction, misery & chaos.
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
It's an interesting one. Alix Cuthbertson is a Sky political reporter.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
The other 5 launches of Gen 1 satellites can't now go ahead - the countries building/operating them are participating in the sanctions. So, if nothing else, you can't send the satellites to Russia for launch.
The suggestion is that the best thing is to go ahead with the launch, since it gets the satellites out of Russia.
The Gen 2 satellites already needed to go to a non-Russian launcher because of technology/ITAR issues.
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
I wouldn't rule out 9 yet.
Bitcoin had been falling for months and while the past week has seen a recovery of sorts, led reportedly by Russians trying to get their money out of Russia, its even now still lower than it was at the start of the year.
Russian buying of bitcoin can only continue for so long and eventually people are going to want to convert it to dollars or something else which could lead to it collapsing again.
4 I don't understand, my understanding is they're far more likely to lose the House than the Senate? Seems odd to propose the opposite.
Might be my bad, but I was thinking the Dems only need to lose one Senate seat to lose control. Whereas the House may be more promising:
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
It's an interesting one. Alix Cuthbertson is a Sky political reporter.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
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:
TLDR: delusion extends far beyond the regime, even among “the well informed”.
Maybe they're right about no lasting insurgency after Ukraine falls. There isn't any to speak of in Chechnya with their puppet regime and those fuckers are very fighty.
Those fuckers haven't done so well in Ukraine.
Crimea is easy to surround with naval/air surveillance, is relatively small and there are only two narrow ways in and out.
Ukraine itself is massive. And Russia hasn't got enough troops to lock it all down.
Therefore, if Ukrainians want there to be an insurgency (this will cost them an awful lot of casualties in reprisals) then there will be one.
Over the past days, Russian forces have tried to creep past several of these cities, that refuse to surrender, to try and press their offensive.
This is a very risky strategy, as Ukrainian forces posted in the cities Russia is "bypassing" could raid their supply lines (and have)
Russia is trying to mitigate/pin Ukrainian forces in these cities by carrying out massive and indiscriminate bombardment with the use of MLRS and cluster ammunition (this is not a justification don't make me say something I am not).
One of those cities is Konotop, in the east. The Russians have sent it an ultimatum: Surrender or we will destroy the city with artillery strikes.
This ⬇️ is a video of the Mayor of Konotop informing residents, trying to see what to do next.
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?
I think Putin is motivated by his historico-philosophical fantasy.
He wants the lands back that he believes historically belong to Russia, so not the whole of the present-day Ukraine.
Of course, Western Ukraine was never part of historic Russia. He wants the Black Sea coast and the lands east of the Dneiper.
The question is whether he could occupy and keep those parts of the country. That depends on how much the rest of Russia shares his vision & are willing to accept the pain.
I think Putin's view of history is quite common amongst Russians.
I think this is probably right. Unfortunately not sure what is going to prevent it. He's already annexed Crimea and turned Belarus into a puppet.
My belief FWIW is that Putin is most interested in his legacy. Sees himself in the tradition of Stalin and the more consequential Tsars.
He found Mother Russia: weak, diminished, despised.
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
It's an interesting one. Alix Cuthbertson is a Sky political reporter.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
Wasn't this one of Dom's projects?
The launches were booked and bought before the bankruptcy. The guy who ran OneWeb into the ground was hard core Elon Musk hater and the only way to even vaguely close the numbers was the cheap launch via Russia.
The first thing that happened, as part of the emergence from bankruptcy was moving to a newer design of satellite (aka Gen 2). This will be launched, almost certainly, from India. It can't be launched from Russia due to export controls issues.
This was another nail in the coffin of Russian space technology.
Russian troops are "operating in complete disarray", their morale sapped and "crying in combat", voice recordings of frontline soldiers obtained by a British intelligence company suggest.
Intercepted radio messages indicate that troops are refusing to obey central command orders, including to shell Ukrainian towns, while complaining bitterly about running out of supplies of food or fuel.
Separate video recordings show one group of Russian military walking away from the battle front and heading back across the border, having had enough.
In a text message to his mother, one soldier purportedly said: "The only thing I want right now is to kill myself."
So perhaps it is all imploding. though I have to say if I read similar in a Russian source I'd say obviously over egged propaganda, and presumably we do that too, so who knows? The "British intelligence co." could be a front for MI something.
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
I wouldn't rule out 9 yet.
Bitcoin had been falling for months and while the past week has seen a recovery of sorts, led reportedly by Russians trying to get their money out of Russia, its even now still lower than it was at the start of the year.
Russian buying of bitcoin can only continue for so long and eventually people are going to want to convert it to dollars or something else which could lead to it collapsing again.
4 I don't understand, my understanding is they're far more likely to lose the House than the Senate? Seems odd to propose the opposite.
Might be my bad, but I was thinking the Dems only need to lose one Senate seat to lose control. Whereas the House may be more promising:
My understanding is the 2022 Senate races are more favourable to the Democrats. Of the 34 races being ran, 20 are already GOP so there's only 14 Democrats. Of those 14, most are very safe, there's only one Democrat Senator not seeking re-election this term too.
However the entire House has to be re-elected in the midterms and the GOP are likely to get enough there, even if they fail in the Senate.
Morning all. I'm gonzo busy with work so only dip in when I can. Whilst its heartening to see the Ukranians resist the bear and watch Putin's war plan fall apart, this is the point where the conflict gets the most dangerous.
Putin smashing Ukraine is bad for Ukraine. Putin not smashing Ukraine and instead having his own economy smashed and being turned into a global pariah is bad for all of us if he decides bigger / broader action is needed.
Thoughts are with @Sandpit , @Cicero and anyone else with direct involvement. My Romanian colleagues are over near Cluj mainly and report a lot of military traffic and increasing numbers of refugees, but otherwise Romania feels more secure thanks to NATO.
Providing this doesn't blow up into WWIII I think we are seeing a rapid reshaping of European geopolitics. That the EU and especially Germany have so rapidly shifted their approach to defence matters will only strengthen both the EU and the pull towards EU and NATO membership of all of the nations not currently fully protected.
Sadly, it is clear that both Ukraine and Russia's economy are being smashed.
War has certainties - death, destruction, misery & chaos.
Epic poetry another one.
No - sometimes all you get is D'Annunzio's bombast. He praised Cadorna, for fucks sake.
For laughs I just had a quick check on my 1 Jan 2022 predictions:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
I wouldn't rule out 9 yet.
Bitcoin had been falling for months and while the past week has seen a recovery of sorts, led reportedly by Russians trying to get their money out of Russia, its even now still lower than it was at the start of the year.
Russian buying of bitcoin can only continue for so long and eventually people are going to want to convert it to dollars or something else which could lead to it collapsing again.
4 I don't understand, my understanding is they're far more likely to lose the House than the Senate? Seems odd to propose the opposite.
Might be my bad, but I was thinking the Dems only need to lose one Senate seat to lose control. Whereas the House may be more promising:
Are some people terminally stupid when it comes to point scoring
Alix Culbertson @alixculbertson OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
It's an interesting one. Alix Cuthbertson is a Sky political reporter.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
The other 5 launches of Gen 1 satellites can't now go ahead - the countries building/operating them are participating in the sanctions. So, if nothing else, you can't send the satellites to Russia for launch.
The suggestion is that the best thing is to go ahead with the launch, since it gets the satellites out of Russia.
The Gen 2 satellites already needed to go to a non-Russian launcher because of technology/ITAR issues.
Hmmm. Russian Space Agency statement (but their own website is unreachable so unsure of source):
Comments
Trouble is, the kleptocracy are very few in number. They have bought their henchmen to rule by fear. Now, when the money runs out to pay those henchmen, they aren't going to be manning the barricades themselves.
@SashaIngber
Senior US defense official tells reporters that Russia's 40-mile convoy, advancing on Kyiv, remains where it did yesterday because of:
-Ukrainian resistance
-Fuel sustainment problems
-Running out of food
-And the Russians may be regrouping, rethinking, and reevaluating"
https://twitter.com/SashaIngber/status/1498703049245790214
For other reports, it seems the two buildings were opposite each other, and both attacked.
You're right it being complicated. Regarding the universities in the early Russian empire, at one point, the majority of the students in 'Russia' were Polish speakers.
Putin's ideas of history have about as much validity as Hitler's about race.
It's a myth to make us feel better.
The Russian MSM is still parroting the line about this all being a peacekeeping mission in Donetsk and Luhansk. They are not seeing pictures of bombs going off in Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson.
Ukrainians made a song for Bayraktar Drones. And it’s amazing."
https://twitter.com/jenmarie410/status/1498874621541691397
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1498766669614886924
Meanwhile in RU TV:
- How do people meet you at the liberated territories?
- Well. Smiles. Flowers. Tears of happiness…
If you are going to take a distinctive line criticising news outlets as 'massively overstated' then you need to be something rather more than an armchair general or an A level student of history from the 1970's (Ishmael).
I write this is as someone who worked for 3 years in intelligence, specifically as it happens on Soviet invasion strategies. But it was an awfully long time ago which led to my blunder that I was sure Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade (for military reasons).
Many of the good western news outlets have experts in the hot seats: people with recent military and / or intelligence backgrounds.
Most analysts are agreed that:
1. Putin was militarily stupid to invade (not to mention economically etc.)
2. They failed to meet their objectives on either a) scope or b) time
3. They are continuing to meet high levels of resistance and have so far failed to capture any single entire city.
4. Logistically there are complex problems for the Russian troops
There’s not many roads left between where they are and Kiev - there’s lots of rivers in the area, and almost all the bridges that cross them have been taken out by the locals.
AIUI one core strategy has been to attack supporting logistics as heavily as armour itself.
https://twitter.com/emmecola/status/1498633737411567619
I've had a closer look at the preprint recently published by
@MichaelWorobey
and others. Everybody knows that I have been skeptical about the market origin hypothesis and I sympathize with many "lab leakers". However, this time I am quite impressed. 1/
Thank you and indeed.
See my answer to DavidL (below).
Over-celebration of Ukraine's apparent success brings Walpole to mind, sadly: “They may ring their bells now, before long they will be wringing their hands.”
That for the main English Language station.
You're supposed to swallow your medicine not spit it out.
Richards
*As in with bow "weights" that could realistically pierce armour of the period.
(Which may explain why a 'Stalingrad siege' has not happened. Both Leningrad and Stalingrad were significantly larger at the time of their sieges.)
He wants the lands back that he believes historically belong to Russia, so not the whole of the present-day Ukraine.
Of course, Western Ukraine was never part of historic Russia. He wants the Black Sea coast and the lands east of the Dneiper.
The question is whether he could occupy and keep those parts of the country. That depends on how much the rest of Russia shares his vision & are willing to accept the pain.
I think Putin's view of history is quite common amongst Russians.
When have you heard UVDL, Macron, Biden endorse enforcing no fly zones
@IAPonomarenko
Rumors have it that Ukraine’s 95th Airborne broke through militant defenses in Horlivka in Donbas and even entered the Russian-occupied city.
Later, Ukrainian troops retreated. Russian collaborators confirm the breakthrough."
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1498929521801715712
Putin's forces failed to meet their early objectives and seem to have expected a roll over. They have instead met high levels of resistance and have galvanised support in the west, albeit on a largely economic front.
Logistically this is now a nightmare for Russian forces. They could be in for a long, long, long campaign: attempting to grind down their opponents, city by city, street by street, building by building. In one sense they probably won't win this because they will never eradicate the guerilla opposition.
So the only options left are probably annihilation through bombardment which may well escalate to thermobarbaric (thermobaric) and NBC.
Clearly the likes of @Yokes and @Dura_Ace are far better placed than me to make these judgments, as are other contributors to the site with personal experience.
Mr Wallace revealed that in a meeting he had had with Russian officials "they were very clear that the Russian people could suffer greater than mine or greater than Europeans, that we can’t be harmed by sanctions".
“I remember saying at one stage, I don’t want Russian people to suffer any more than I want European or British people to suffer, that’s my view - I don’t want that."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/02/boris-johnson-news-sanctions-ukraine-russia-keir-starmer-pmqs/
https://twitter.com/joerichlaw/status/1498947343395262469
(a) the convoy isn't moving much
(b) it isn't being attacked
What's obvious is that their ability to manoeuvre is severely constrained - from where do you expect them to attack the convoy ?
Ukraine may be losing the conventional battle, but it seems some way from being over.
My fear is that Putin goes full Syria on the cities. He's started down that road in Kharkiv.
1. Which cities have fallen?
3. Fast-track to EU could only happen after a resolution to this war that keeps Ukraine independent. That is not likely to be soon and not likely to leave Putin in charge of Russia or Russia in any serious position to object to Ukraine joining the EU. The idea of fast-tracking Ukraine into the EU as the former falls is about as workable as Churchill's 1940 proposal of a union of Britain and France.
If don't know I say so.
Motorcycle racing on the other hand... if I am talking about that you'd better be paying attention because that will be 24 carat solid gold information.
(A) It can't. They don't have the logistics and the land in front of them is blocked.
(B) While stationary it will be at its most heavily fortified and well defended.
Isn't the usual asymmetric way to attack a convoy to do so while it's moving when it enters a trap, not while it's stationary?
Alix Culbertson
@alixculbertson
OneWeb was saved from bankruptcy by the British taxpayer. It is set to launch 36 satellites from a Russian-owned launchpad in Kazakhstan this week, on Russian-owned rockets.
It’s believed to already have been paid for.
Should it still go ahead?
If it's been paid for then it needs to go ahead - what you can't do is use it for future launches.
I didn't know that about the universities and the language used. Thanks; adds to the historical complications of course!
However, any idea what was used for teaching? Polish? Latin? Or, perchance Greek?
1. Obviously. Completely barking.
2. We simply don't know. Views are being expressed either way. But it seems reasonable to assume they thought there would be token resistence and there isn't.
3. They have now captured 1 city in the South and seem on ther verge of capturing a larger city in the north.
4. Undoubtedly. But the logistical challenges of Russia fighting in Ukraine really should be significantly less than we had to cope with in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are not that far from home, they have an extensive road network to use and they showed the capacity to bring a lot of force to bear in the more challenging conditions of Syria quite recently. This should be relatively easy but it is not proving so. That may be because of poor planning but it might also be that the Ukranians have taken out far more resupply columns than they anticipated. Poor morale is clearly not helping them either.
EDIT: I think there was at least one one launch contracted with the Russians. After that, the next tranche of launches is already going to Indian launchers.
Further EDIT: There are 5 more planned after this one, in the original contract, all for this year. They won't be going ahead.
Thus, I cannot see a way (beyond a very unlikely early and full Russian capitulation) that the Russian economy doesn't completely collapse. To the point that it would not be able to hold on to a defeated Ukraine anyway.
Intercepted radio messages indicate that troops are refusing to obey central command orders, including to shell Ukrainian towns, while complaining bitterly about running out of supplies of food or fuel.
Separate video recordings show one group of Russian military walking away from the battle front and heading back across the border, having had enough.
In a text message to his mother, one soldier purportedly said: "The only thing I want right now is to kill myself."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/01/russian-troops-disarray-crying-combat-radio-messages-reveal/
So perhaps it is all imploding. though I have to say if I read similar in a Russian source I'd say obviously over egged propaganda, and presumably we do that too, so who knows? The "British intelligence co." could be a front for MI something.
Cyprus managed to enter the EU afterall while half of Cyprus is still occupied (from Cyprus's perspective) by Turks. Why can't half of Ukraine enter the EU while half is still occupied by Russians?
"Russia's battle plan appears to be a three-pronged assault, striking south from Belarus towards Kyiv, west from the Donbas area and north from Crimea, all assisted by diversionary strikes throughout the country.
So, if that is the plan, why have Russian forces not made speedier progress towards achieving their operational objectives?
It would seem, so far, that what we are seeing on the battlefield in Ukraine is that the will to win by the Ukrainian forces, aided by their reservists and volunteers, may well be appreciably greater than that of the Russian conscripts who are opposing them.
Moreover, in this era of fake news, propaganda and bare-faced lies, one wonders just what the Russian conscripts were told about the operation on which they have embarked.
On the evidence of the first few days, young Russian conscripts who are dying in large numbers seem woefully unaware of their circumstances.
Verified reports are coming to hand of Russian soldiers abandoning their tanks and running for safety in nearby woods, others of tanks running out of fuel and even one report of Ukrainians offering to tow their tanks back to Russia."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10558311/Winning-war-not-just-troop-tank-numbers-writes-General-RICHARD-DANNATT.html
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-03-01/putin-could-fire-nuclear-weapon-into-desert-says-former-army-chief
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1574108/Gb-news-ukraine-russia-war-cormac-smith-lord-general-dannatt-ont
I have found no comments available by General David Richards so cannot verify the truth or falsehood of what you purport.
Once the convoy is moving, defences inevitably fall down.
Such is my purely uneducated non-expert guess at least.
I think it's time I take my leave of the armchair generals on here for a little while ...
I actually worked on Soviet invasion strategies but have the good sense to acknowledge that it was an awfully long time ago and that it does not now make me an expert. Perhaps those with an A level or GCSE in Cold War history should do the same.
Ciao.
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election.
4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue.
9. Bitcoin to collapse.
10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
Number 8 is obviously a fail now. 3, 9, and 10 look decidedly unlikely.
It's quite possible I could achieve 0/10 by the end of the year!
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1498951397928316933
The town of Irpin was a quiet bedroom community just west of Kyiv. In the past week Russia has transformed it into a war zone and reduced parts of it to rubble. Here’s what it looked like Wednesday morning.
Putin smashing Ukraine is bad for Ukraine. Putin not smashing Ukraine and instead having his own economy smashed and being turned into a global pariah is bad for all of us if he decides bigger / broader action is needed.
Thoughts are with @Sandpit , @Cicero and anyone else with direct involvement. My Romanian colleagues are over near Cluj mainly and report a lot of military traffic and increasing numbers of refugees, but otherwise Romania feels more secure thanks to NATO.
Providing this doesn't blow up into WWIII I think we are seeing a rapid reshaping of European geopolitics. That the EU and especially Germany have so rapidly shifted their approach to defence matters will only strengthen both the EU and the pull towards EU and NATO membership of all of the nations not currently fully protected.
https://hongkongfp.com/2022/03/02/russia-ukraine-war-gives-a-glimpse-of-chinas-new-world-order-and-of-beijings-faltering-reputation/?fbclid=IwAR192Slb_EvKBUU8Vd10OX2j1HPwqPqvTPAYadF70-P9JrRniCERe0BuocE
Obviously an anti-Chinese periodical, as the name suggests, but they make some good points.
Bitcoin had been falling for months and while the past week has seen a recovery of sorts, led reportedly by Russians trying to get their money out of Russia, its even now still lower than it was at the start of the year.
Russian buying of bitcoin can only continue for so long and eventually people are going to want to convert it to dollars or something else which could lead to it collapsing again.
4 I don't understand, my understanding is they're far more likely to lose the House than the Senate? Seems odd to propose the opposite.
The main blooper was the promise to provide aircraft - not a UK promise - which was then withdrawn a day or two later.
The Heil is bad enough, but have you got a more credible source than the Express? Like the Sport, or RT?
Oh and South Korea too.
This is like your insistence as mysticrose that in emergencies airliners jettison every drop of fuel on board. They don't, and if you think about it it would be completely insane if they did, and converted themselves to giant gliders. But you were determined to be right vs the armchair pilots on the site.
Based in London, but UK Gov stake now down to 20-25%, based in London, plus a golden share and whatever else is built into the agreement. The service can reach N of 50 degrees North. With far larger shares being held by the Indian interest - and India has (if I am up to date) stood back from such thorough sanctions as used elsewhere.
Do we even have the power to stop it?
There are another 5 launches planned for 2022, currently from Russia.
But it would not surprise me if Russia postponed the launch themselves.
War has certainties - death, destruction, misery & chaos.
Stay safe.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/01/russian-troops-disarray-crying-combat-radio-messages-reveal/
Who would have thought slav-on-slav fighting would have been problematic? Not Vlad it seems.
My belief FWIW is that Putin is most interested in his legacy. Sees himself in the tradition of Stalin and the more consequential Tsars.
He found Mother Russia: weak, diminished, despised.
He left Mother Russia: strong, enlarged, feared.
The suggestion is that the best thing is to go ahead with the launch, since it gets the satellites out of Russia.
The Gen 2 satellites already needed to go to a non-Russian launcher because of technology/ITAR issues.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/
...but what do I know.
Ukraine itself is massive. And Russia hasn't got enough troops to lock it all down.
Therefore, if Ukrainians want there to be an insurgency (this will cost them an awful lot of casualties in reprisals) then there will be one.
This is a very risky strategy, as Ukrainian forces posted in the cities Russia is "bypassing" could raid their supply lines (and have)
Russia is trying to mitigate/pin Ukrainian forces in these cities by carrying out massive and indiscriminate bombardment with the use of MLRS and cluster ammunition (this is not a justification don't make me say something I am not).
One of those cities is Konotop, in the east. The Russians have sent it an ultimatum: Surrender or we will destroy the city with artillery strikes.
This ⬇️ is a video of the Mayor of Konotop informing residents, trying to see what to do next.
🚩Russian war crime in the making
https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1498948286383804417?s=20
The first thing that happened, as part of the emergence from bankruptcy was moving to a newer design of satellite (aka Gen 2). This will be launched, almost certainly, from India. It can't be launched from Russia due to export controls issues.
This was another nail in the coffin of Russian space technology.
However the entire House has to be re-elected in the midterms and the GOP are likely to get enough there, even if they fail in the Senate.
Both their voters and the Dem strategists are unbelievably fucking idiots when mid terms roll round.
The Senate map is pretty favourable to the Dems this time round but I fully expect a dreadful night for them in both.
Russian Space Agency: “If before 21.30 Friday Russia does not receive guarantees that British OneWeb satellites will not be used for military purposes, the launch vehicle will be removed from the launch. Any attempts to hack Russian satellites are casus belli.
https://www.airlive.net/breaking-russian-space-agency-if-before-21-30-friday-russia-does-not-receive-guarantees-that-oneweb-satellites-will-not-be-used-for-military-purposes-soyuz-rocked-will-be-removed-from-the-launch/
This could turn into the next episode of political mudslinging imo.