The house all stand and applaud the attendance of Ukraine’s Ambassador
That was lovely to watch, as is the packed house wearing Ukranian colours, including the Speaker.
Virtue signalling b*ll*cks
As I keep saying, this sort of thing will be on the news in Ukraine tonight.
One man’s virtue signalling b*ll*cks, is another country’s morale-boosting show of support.
We are clearly afraid of Russia and we don't really want to get involved.
These gestures are to assuage your conscience on that matter. We all know that we are standing around watching a defenceless person getting beaten to a pulp by a bunch of bullies.
IF wearing the Ukrainian flag makes you feel better about that, good for you.
We are rightly afraid of nuclear war and escalation by a lunatic dictator, but that doesn’t mean we do either all or nothing.
Wearing a Ukranian flag sure as hell makes me feel better, if only as a show of support for my Ukranian wife, her family and friends - some of whom are sleeping in the metro in Kiev at the moment.
Shows of support from overseas matter a lot to the Ukranians at the moment, it’s good for them to see that the whole world is standing behind them and wanting them to succeed.
Thankfully it’s not just words though, the West and NATO have responded admirably, sending plenty of weapons and training to the Ukranians over the past eight years, and happy to keep the military supply lines open now, when they are most needed.
I apologised to you Sandpit, see my later post.
I think your country is incredibly brave and noble, but I think all this 'standing with Ukraine' from our leaders when we are standing by watching your cities get turned to rubble, is empty gestures to make them feel better about their choices.
No because at the moment there is sod all else we can do that won't result in things escalating seriously badly very quickly.
Because Russia seem to be angling for a fight (which makes little sense given how badly the invasion has gone) the West is having to be very careful when it comes to military matters and spending a lot of time making sure that no theoretical white line is breached that Russia could use as an excuse to escalate things further.
OK when would you countenance us getting involved?
When the Russians start lining those Ukrainians who are fighting up against the wall?
When the next eastern European country gets invaded?
The house all stand and applaud the attendance of Ukraine’s Ambassador
That was lovely to watch, as is the packed house wearing Ukranian colours, including the Speaker.
Virtue signalling b*ll*cks
As I keep saying, this sort of thing will be on the news in Ukraine tonight.
One man’s virtue signalling b*ll*cks, is another country’s morale-boosting show of support.
We are clearly afraid of Russia and we don't really want to get involved.
These gestures are to assuage your conscience on that matter. We all know that we are standing around watching a defenceless person getting beaten to a pulp by a bunch of bullies.
IF wearing the Ukrainian flag makes you feel better about that, good for you.
We are rightly afraid of nuclear war and escalation by a lunatic dictator, but that doesn’t mean we do either all or nothing.
Wearing a Ukranian flag sure as hell makes me feel better, if only as a show of support for my Ukranian wife, her family and friends - some of whom are sleeping in the metro in Kiev at the moment.
Shows of support from overseas matter a lot to the Ukranians at the moment, it’s good for them to see that the whole world is standing behind them and wanting them to succeed.
Thankfully it’s not just words though, the West and NATO have responded admirably, sending plenty of weapons and training to the Ukranians over the past eight years, and happy to keep the military supply lines open now, when they are most needed.
I apologised to you Sandpit, see my later post.
I think your country is incredibly brave and noble, but I think all this 'standing with Ukraine' from our leaders when we are standing by watching your cities get turned to rubble, is empty gestures to make them feel better about their choices.
No because at the moment there is sod all else we can do that won't result in things escalating seriously badly very quickly.
Because Russia seem to be angling for a fight (which makes little sense given how badly the invasion has gone) the West is having to be very careful when it comes to military matters and spending a lot of time making sure that no theoretical white line is breached that Russia could use as an excuse to escalate things further.
OK when would you countenance us getting involved?
When the Russians start lining those Ukrainians who are fighting up against the wall?
When the next eastern European country gets invaded?
when a NATO country gets invaded?
When Putin gets to Calais?
When the Russians march up Whitehall?
We already are involved, just indirectly through Ukraine as a proxy.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners into our country.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
The issue comes down to the fact that a law abiding Ukrainian cannot get on a flight to the UK without a valid visa (even though they are a refugee). A £25,000 fine per person has an impact on airline decision making.
And at the moment we aren't issuing free visas to Ukrainians we are still charging them £100 / £1000s in visa processing fees.
Ah, thanks. I had no idea the system was working (in other circumstances) so well! Seems to me like we should be processing the assylum claims in a country bordering Ukraine, but I would not claim to know that that would work.
if Putin goes ahead and levels Ukraine’s biggest cities and its capital, Kyiv, he and all of his cronies will never again see the London and New York apartments they bought with all their stolen riches. There will be no more Davos and no more St. Moritz. Instead, they will all be locked in a big prison called Russia — with the freedom to travel only to Syria, Crimea, Belarus, North Korea and China, maybe. Their kids will be thrown out of private boarding schools from Switzerland to Oxford.
They don't just have the joys of that limited choice of options. They will also have an open invite to the Hague and some awkward and very painful (sadly only verbally rather than physically) meetings followed by a few to a lot of years in a very small studio flat without cooking facilities.
Our politicians have goldfish minds EEK. In a few years time, when there's some new real or imagined crisis, the Russians will be back. Money talks, they still have a stack of it.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
I see @Dura_Ace as always got in there with a pithier explanation. .
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
An NLAW round is about the size of a cheap dildo. It just can't deliver that level of carnage.
For whatever reason the UK didn't give Ukraine Javelin which has a much bigger warhead and longer range. They got a round of applause instead. NHS staff can sympathise.
Probably because they wanted both. An NLAW requires much less training, and is a lot more portable.
And it's a damn sight more effective than the RPGs they had in 2014.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
Just leave them to it. Do something you prefer like going for a walk.
"JUST IN Indian ministry of external Affairs spokesperson said that advisory issued by Indian embassy for nationals to leave Kharkiv by 6 p.m. local time was given on "basis of information from Russia" He added that they should take any method to leave, including "on foot"."
Sounds like in just under 3 hours time they're going to unleash all they have.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
An NLAW round is about the size of a cheap dildo. It just can't deliver that level of carnage.
For whatever reason the UK didn't give Ukraine Javelin which has a much bigger warhead and longer range. They got a round of applause instead. NHS staff can sympathise.
Probably because they wanted both. An NLAW requires much less training, and is a lot more portable.
And it's a damn sight more effective than the RPGs they had in 2014.
I seem to recall that the US was supplying Javelin?
Given all the other coordination that has been going on about sanctions etc, it doesn't seem exactly impossible that the arms shipments are being organised with a common plan of some kind?
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Yep, it probably won't all be NLAW. But two points:
*) Some of the weaponry used in the attack might have been NLAWs. Just not solely. We cannot know. *) In a war that will be chewing weapons up faster than soldiers, provision of the the NLAWs might have freed up the weapons that did this.
Jesus fucking Christ I know that conflicts in distant lands turn all PB posters into a cross between Sun Tzu and Metternich but just look at the fucking picture. How do you suppose an NLAW operates. I don't even know why I am having this discussion. In fact new rule: stop discussing military matters with PB's armchair generals. Go for your life. Great NLAW action.
Tossers.
For someone who is normally such a big fan of whatabouterism and false equivalence, you seem to be unnecessarily anally retentive today.
I originally wrote "hard munitions like NLAWs" and also "NLAWs and more". Do you know what the word "like" means? Or the word "more"?
I couldn't care less whether this specific destruction was caused by NLAW munitions or A.N.Other munitions.
The only key points that matter are:
1. We are sending them munitions (as are other nations). 2. They know how to use those munitions. 3. They work.
That is hard actions, hard firepower and mean Ukraine is not "defenceless".
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
I think the best that can be done is some agreement for a safe corridor and ceasefire to allow people to leave . As painful as it is to see this horrible loss of life and destruction I think some of the public still don’t understand the ramifications of a no fly zone .
It's just occurred that Putin's approaching of killing people in order to 'save' them is exactly the same as many Final Fantasy villains. Now I'm just picturing him as Kefka (ok, admittedly, that was not quite Kefka's approach).
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
An NLAW round is about the size of a cheap dildo. It just can't deliver that level of carnage.
For whatever reason the UK didn't give Ukraine Javelin which has a much bigger warhead and longer range. They got a round of applause instead. NHS staff can sympathise.
Christ have you been buying dildos from Leon again?
The NLAW round is 150mm diameter and has a length of 1m.
And in answer to Toppings comment about the location, it is specifically designed to be used "in densely forested terrain and even building interiors".
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
The house all stand and applaud the attendance of Ukraine’s Ambassador
That was lovely to watch, as is the packed house wearing Ukranian colours, including the Speaker.
Virtue signalling b*ll*cks
Bullshit.
Signalling your support for allies who are literally fighting for their freedom matters.
Morale matters.
Symbolism matters.
No they don't. As Darkage says, Putin is probably going to win at, which makes these gestures empty nothings.
Darkage is wrong.
Your mate Trump who called this genius is wrong too.
These gestures, backed up by hard munitions like NLAWs and hard sanctions on finance etc, absolutely are not empty.
Also, "probably" is not "definitely".
Russia is odds on to (eventually) successfully take Ukraine.
But the cities will be absolute bloodbaths for them. They won't be able to use artillery and rockets, because of the presence of their own soldiers, and the houses and tower blocks will be full of people with anti-tank weapons and rifles.
And let's not forget either that Russia is currently mostly fighting in the much more pro-Russian East of the country. What happens when their supply chains are stretched and they're attacking Lviv? Suddenly Russia has extremely stretched supply chains, while Ukraine does not.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
No fly zone makes no sense because Ukraine's drones are doing so well.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
Nevertheless had the clown wanted to fulfil his dream of being the new Churchill, he would have spent the last few years tirelessly warning us about the dangers of Russia, not encouraging the country to keep on taking their money, and flying off for secret meetings with wealthy Russians.
He was clearly diligently conducting intelligence on them whilst weakening their finances by accepting the cash. I can't understand why anyone would think differently.
The house all stand and applaud the attendance of Ukraine’s Ambassador
That was lovely to watch, as is the packed house wearing Ukranian colours, including the Speaker.
Virtue signalling b*ll*cks
Bullshit.
Signalling your support for allies who are literally fighting for their freedom matters.
Morale matters.
Symbolism matters.
I suppose misty refuses to go to funerals on the basis that expressing sympathy is virtue-signalling.
Signalling virtue is not inherently a bad thing. Sometimes it is appropriate to signal one's virtue. Like identifying art, I think we can generally tell when a gesture is an empty bit of self satisfaction and when it is not. Were nothing else going on the actions of the House would be empty, but concrete actions are being taken, even if whether it is enough is debated. So it is not empty.
"JUST IN Indian ministry of external Affairs spokesperson said that advisory issued by Indian embassy for nationals to leave Kharkiv by 6 p.m. local time was given on "basis of information from Russia" He added that they should take any method to leave, including "on foot"."
Sounds like in just under 3 hours time they're going to unleash all they have.
Sadly that's possible, maybe more than Possible.
But its also Possible that Russia is trying to invoke Panic, and see giving this sort of info to India and other nations as a way of doing that.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
No fly zone makes no sense because Ukraine's drones are doing so well.
21st century NATO hardware versus 1980s Soviet hand-me-downs.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Yep, it probably won't all be NLAW. But two points:
*) Some of the weaponry used in the attack might have been NLAWs. Just not solely. We cannot know. *) In a war that will be chewing weapons up faster than soldiers, provision of the the NLAWs might have freed up the weapons that did this.
Jesus fucking Christ I know that conflicts in distant lands turn all PB posters into a cross between Sun Tzu and Metternich but just look at the fucking picture. How do you suppose an NLAW operates. I don't even know why I am having this discussion. In fact new rule: stop discussing military matters with PB's armchair generals. Go for your life. Great NLAW action.
Tossers.
For someone who is normally such a big fan of whatabouterism and false equivalence, you seem to be unnecessarily anally retentive today.
I originally wrote "hard munitions like NLAWs" and also "NLAWs and more". Do you know what the word "like" means? Or the word "more"?
I couldn't care less whether this specific destruction was caused by NLAW munitions or A.N.Other munitions.
The only key points that matter are:
1. We are sending them munitions (as are other nations). 2. They know how to use those munitions. 3. They work.
That is hard actions, hard firepower and mean Ukraine is not "defenceless".
Yes that is true we went down a little rabbit hole there. Perhaps I was triggered (geddit). However the episode does show as if we didn't already know how "fake news" can take on a life of its own. The preponderance of military strategists on the internet (and hosting radio programmes) is very dangerous.
The increasingly important issue is what happens if/when Russia occupies Ukraine. Because then the supply of munitions becomes a whole lot more problematic. By air? Well it will be "Russian airspace" by then; by land ie Poland? There is a cassus belli for the Russians right there to take action against (NATO member) Poland and who today thinks Putin certainly wouldn't.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
An NLAW round is about the size of a cheap dildo. It just can't deliver that level of carnage.
For whatever reason the UK didn't give Ukraine Javelin which has a much bigger warhead and longer range. They got a round of applause instead. NHS staff can sympathise.
Probably because they wanted both. An NLAW requires much less training, and is a lot more portable.
And it's a damn sight more effective than the RPGs they had in 2014.
I seem to recall that the US was supplying Javelin?
Given all the other coordination that has been going on about sanctions etc, it doesn't seem exactly impossible that the arms shipments are being organised with a common plan of some kind?
No, it was all done in something of a mad panic. If there'd been any serious plan prior to the invasion, we'd have supplied a lot more kit a lot sooner.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that war was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The house all stand and applaud the attendance of Ukraine’s Ambassador
That was lovely to watch, as is the packed house wearing Ukranian colours, including the Speaker.
Virtue signalling b*ll*cks
Bullshit.
Signalling your support for allies who are literally fighting for their freedom matters.
Morale matters.
Symbolism matters.
No they don't. As Darkage says, Putin is probably going to win at, which makes these gestures empty nothings.
Darkage is wrong.
Your mate Trump who called this genius is wrong too.
These gestures, backed up by hard munitions like NLAWs and hard sanctions on finance etc, absolutely are not empty.
Also, "probably" is not "definitely".
Russia is odds on to (eventually) successfully take Ukraine.
But the cities will be absolute bloodbaths for them. They won't be able to use artillery and rockets, because of the presence of their own soldiers, and the houses and tower blocks will be full of people with anti-tank weapons and rifles...
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Yep, it probably won't all be NLAW. But two points:
*) Some of the weaponry used in the attack might have been NLAWs. Just not solely. We cannot know. *) In a war that will be chewing weapons up faster than soldiers, provision of the the NLAWs might have freed up the weapons that did this.
Your second point is an excellent one, and really emphasises the importance of keeping weapons (and other supplies) flowing to the Ukraine. There's also a question about the extent to which the Russian arms industry requires components from the rest of the world.
Notable at PMQs that Boris has adopted the American pronunciation of Putin as Pootin, as opposed to Pewtin which is generally used in Britain. Starmer too.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
I suspect more like Iraq than Afghanistan. Russia could set up a Green Zone, including puppet government, in Kyiv, and a few other bases, but everywhere else is contested.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Some people in life cheer the under dog. For some reason a small proportion of society seem to have contempt for anyone struggling and are overly impressed with money and status.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Yep, it probably won't all be NLAW. But two points:
*) Some of the weaponry used in the attack might have been NLAWs. Just not solely. We cannot know. *) In a war that will be chewing weapons up faster than soldiers, provision of the the NLAWs might have freed up the weapons that did this.
Your second point is an excellent one, and really emphasises the importance of keeping weapons (and other supplies) flowing to the Ukraine. There's also a question about the extent to which the Russian arms industry requires components from the rest of the world.
The Russian machine tool industry folded up and went bye bye. Very dependent on Western CNC and the like. Even for the actual tools - which get used up at a rate of knots. The Chinese are very good on the cheap end of that market, but for reliability and precision....
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
You seem to be struggling to understand that the world is fighting back.
We're just fighting back in a smart manner. What's more - we're fighting back in a successful manner too.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
Somebody needs to make the point that the UK could not enforce a no fly zone in any event.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
I suspect more like Iraq than Afghanistan. Russia could set up a Green Zone, including puppet government, in Kyiv, and a few other bases, but everywhere else is contested.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
Which of course would beg the question we're already asking - why bother.
And do we really think Putin's game plan is to have an inkspot strategy in Ukraine. Not what all that armour says.
Intriguing for military historians in time to come.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
Sanctioning oligarchs in the UK will make little practical difference. The point is that it is an easy win for a UK government that doesn't have huge scope to actually make a difference.
It raises the question why Johnson should be so set against. He is doing inactivity very masterfully at the moment (attending Ukrainian church services, pontificating in Poland etc). So why not crack down on Russian oligarchs?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
How do you think the West is acting in Ukraine?
The West is reacting with overwhelming strength of purpose in Ukraine which is defeating your mate Putin.
You can keep sharing PJohnson's lies that Ukraine may as well surrender, but the rest of us won't believe it.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
The West has also categorically said they won't get involved directly in the defence of Ukraine. They are trying to without doing so. Would they leave the Poles to themselves? Not sure. Perhaps.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
Somebody needs to make the point that the UK could not enforce a no fly zone in any event.
I don't think people fully understand what a no-fly zone is. It sounds a lot more passive than it actually is. It's basically a declaration of war. It may be that that is what people really want. But in most cases I think they think a no-fly zone is little more than a UN resolution.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
And the linked story didn't say it was, either... " the ambush - said to have been carried out by troops armed with NLAW missile launchers. Artillery and drone strikes are also thought to have been deployed in the attack".
Someone googled it to make a point, and triggered you.
There's better reporting on selected bits of Twitter than in quite a lot of mainstream media.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
Jesus, you are an insufferable twat.
They are in Ukraine because they have a madman determined to leave his mark on history. He will stop at Ukraine because....NATO. Meanwhile, we just let his country crumble from the inside out. Sanctions. And weaponry that keeps his shitty underpowered army bogged down.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
We are operating to a clearly defined set of rules understood by both sides. We (as NATO) will not start shooting at Russian armed forces unless they actually move onto NATO territory. This is how we avoid a general nuclear war.
Now it is of course possible that Putin is intent on eventually attacking NATO directly - though I suspect that after what he has seen in Ukraine he will be rethinking that. It is also possible he sees a nuclear war as inevitable in which case we are all screwed.
But for now he has not crossed that line. We cannot be the ones to cross it. If he attacks any NATO country then all bets are off and I would suggest everyone finds a very deep hole to die in but until then we need to hope our own leaders have enough sense to realise that this is not something we can win. In a direct war between NATO and Russia everyone loses.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
Which is of course the crux of the dilemma that the West may face.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
Piers Morgan is a national treasure. Always wrong is a valuable skill.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
Plenty of them also got their titles from being good knights and military commanders, right up to the Duke of Marlborough.
However regardless of how they became rich they and their families are entitled to keep it in any society based on the rule of law
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
I’m up for confiscating the aristocracy’s wealth.
I'm not. I think you get more flies with honey, and I believe in creating a system which gently but inexorably encourages the very wealthy to become givers and responsibility takers in society. Remember that the robber barons of centuries past did become the gentry, ending up employing all those people and taking active responsibility for the communities that they were part of.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
I suspect more like Iraq than Afghanistan. Russia could set up a Green Zone, including puppet government, in Kyiv, and a few other bases, but everywhere else is contested.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
Which of course would beg the question we're already asking - why bother.
And do we really think Putin's game plan is to have an inkspot strategy in Ukraine. Not what all that armour says.
Intriguing for military historians in time to come.
I think Putin believed his own bullshit. He thought that - particularly in Eastern Ukraine - that his soldiers would be welcomed as liberators.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
Somebody needs to make the point that the UK could not enforce a no fly zone in any event.
I don't think people fully understand what a no-fly zone is. It sounds a lot more passive than it actually is. It's basically a declaration of war. It may be that that is what people really want. But in most cases I think they think a no-fly zone is little more than a UN resolution.
Yes, the means of actually enforcing it actually would be an escalation between Russia and non-Ukrainians, as opposed to the sorts of things Russia calls escalation normally.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
Plenty of them also got their titles from being good knights and military commanders, right up to the Duke of Marlborough.
However regardless of how they became rich they and their families are entitled to keep it in any society based on the rule of law
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
Piers Morgan is a national treasure. Always wrong is a valuable skill.
The UK are saving our best weapon of misinformation in case the financial sanctions don't cause enough panic in Russia....step forward Prof Robert Peston.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
Thinking alowed now, rather than proposing this, but,
Could we start a 'No Fly Zone', over the western part of Ukraine,
Officerly to protect refugees, but also to allow us to fly weapons more directly to Ukraine rather than having to derive all the way form Poland?
Would that trigger a response? at the moment most of the Russian planes seem to be in the east or centre. Putin might look silly if he tyres to shoot down UK planes but doesn't have the ability?
Then we could slowly/incrementally move the edge east?
I quite like Yahoo finance. I find it well laid out and easily digestible. But the downside to it is the headlines. Often, you will get headlines (FTSE crashes as...) which are completely belied by the well-laid out figures immediately above (showing, for example, a slight rise in the FTSE after an initially poor start to the day). Today we have the other sort of puzzling headline in which cause and effect are heavily implied in a way which doesn't seem to make sense: "Stock markets rise as Biden declares Putin 'dictator'". Technically it is true, but it is inviting you to draw an inference of cause and effect which can't possibly be there.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
Yes, of course I believe it.
We entered into a treaty, and we've put boots on the ground in Estonia and Poland.
If Russia invades Poland or Estonia (and given their experiences in Ukraine, I suspect that is vanishingly unlikely now), then we are at war with Russia, and British troops and aircraft will be fighting their Russian counterparts.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
And the linked story didn't say it was, either... " the ambush - said to have been carried out by troops armed with NLAW missile launchers. Artillery and drone strikes are also thought to have been deployed in the attack".
Someone googled it to make a point, and triggered you.
There's better reporting on selected bits of Twitter than in quite a lot of mainstream media.
It was like I was back at Netheravon...
And yes but it's like the advertising thing isn't it. 50% of it is great, the problem is...
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
Plenty of them also got their titles from being good knights and military commanders, right up to the Duke of Marlborough.
However regardless of how they became rich they and their families are entitled to keep it in any society based on the rule of law
If you become rich through kleptocracy and war crimes, you are not entitled to keep your riches in a society based on the rule of law.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
Piers Morgan is a national treasure. Always wrong is a valuable skill.
The UK are saving our best weapon of misinformation in case the financial sanctions don't cause enough panic in Russia....step forward Prof Robert Peston.
I think there are philosophical and moral issues about deploying The Pesto.
I think we should at least consider nuking Russia first.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
Piers Morgan is a national treasure. Always wrong is a valuable skill.
The media really does have a responsibility to explain what this would mean. Not just the “we’d be at each with Russia” bit but also the “the U.K. can’t implement such a thing alone, and neither can any other country save the US” bit,
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
I suspect more like Iraq than Afghanistan. Russia could set up a Green Zone, including puppet government, in Kyiv, and a few other bases, but everywhere else is contested.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
Which of course would beg the question we're already asking - why bother.
And do we really think Putin's game plan is to have an inkspot strategy in Ukraine. Not what all that armour says.
Intriguing for military historians in time to come.
As far as I can tell - and I am absolutely not an expert - Putin has three strategic aims for Ukraine:
Keep Ukraine in
Keep the West out
Don't allow a Ukrainian identity independent of Russia
It looks like he's already gone backwards on all three aims with this invasion. To the extent Putin is addressing a perceived problem with this invasion, it was a problem of Putin's own creation. Twenty years ago you could plausibly claim, as Putin did then and still does now, that Ukraine isn't a proper country. Putin has helped to make it one.
Unfortunately Putin losing (in these terms) doesn't mean Ukraine winning on what it wants.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
Iraq wasn't on the back of a lie, nor was it illegal. The Iraq War was legally approved and justified by UN Security Council Resolution 687.
The idea that Iraq had WMDs was not a lie, except in a way it was deliberate misinformation from the Saddam Hussein regime.
The Hussein regime deliberately created ambiguity as to whether they had WMDs. They wanted it to simultaneously be unable to be proven that they did, while simultaneously wanting people to believe that they did (and be afraid of them).
It served Saddam's purposes to have his local enemies think that he had WMDs and was willing to use them so that they couldn't challenge him.
It was an intelligence failing not to realise that Iraq had removed all their WMDs, but it was a failing the Iraqis wanted the world to have until it led to the invasion.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
I’m up for confiscating the aristocracy’s wealth.
I'm not. I think you get more flies with honey, and I believe in creating a system which gently but inexorably encourages the very wealthy to become givers and responsibility takers in society. Remember that the robber barons of centuries past did become the gentry, ending up employing all those people and taking active responsibility for the communities that they were part of.
So, if the great-great-great-great grandkids of the Russian oligarchs employ a few servants, it doesn’t matter how those oligarchs got rich and there’s no problem with giving them visas?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
Actually I'd have agreed with you a proper military response was actually unlikely in that situation, were it not for what is happening. How the West is acting in Ukraine, with actually heavy sanctions and rapid deployment of materials to Ukraine, a non-NATO member, shows them much more willing to act than I would have thought.
So actually I do believe our leaders on this, for precisely the reason you seem to think they wouldn't act - Ukraine.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
Jesus, you are an insufferable twat.
They are in Ukraine because they have a madman determined to leave his mark on history. He will stop at Ukraine because....NATO. Meanwhile, we just let his country crumble from the inside out. Sanctions. And weaponry that keeps his shitty underpowered army bogged down.
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
No - he/she (they?!) have to stay. It is a very good logic check to have such issues raised.
If Putin invades Poland, say, that is very very likely it, the end, MAD. Now, we might easily say it's worth all dying in order to maintain whatever principle we went into the game with but it is useful for all of us to ponder these questions.
I've just caught up with PMQs. As usual, the PM responds to every question by telling us all that the UK's response on everything to do with Ukraine has been world-leading. Just like he did on Covid, and everything else. On and on and he goes, not answering the question, just playing the big I am.
It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not (it isn't, as it happens). The "world-leading" rhetoric on every single sodding thing is just fucking embarrassing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would think and say exactly the same thing if it were a Labour PM engaging in this childish boosterism.
Love the way "you are afraid of a nuclear war" is being used as some sort of moral condemnation of weak cowardice. Rather than the default setting of the non-psychopath.
Comments
When the Russians start lining those Ukrainians who are fighting up against the wall?
When the next eastern European country gets invaded?
when a NATO country gets invaded?
When Putin gets to Calais?
When the Russians march up Whitehall?
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1499004311908630530
.
An NLAW requires much less training, and is a lot more portable.
And it's a damn sight more effective than the RPGs they had in 2014.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
"JUST IN
Indian ministry of external Affairs spokesperson said that advisory issued by Indian embassy for nationals to leave Kharkiv by 6 p.m. local time was given on "basis of information from Russia" He added that they should take any method to leave, including "on foot"."
Sounds like in just under 3 hours time they're going to unleash all they have.
Given all the other coordination that has been going on about sanctions etc, it doesn't seem exactly impossible that the arms shipments are being organised with a common plan of some kind?
I originally wrote "hard munitions like NLAWs" and also "NLAWs and more". Do you know what the word "like" means? Or the word "more"?
I couldn't care less whether this specific destruction was caused by NLAW munitions or A.N.Other munitions.
The only key points that matter are:
1. We are sending them munitions (as are other nations).
2. They know how to use those munitions.
3. They work.
That is hard actions, hard firepower and mean Ukraine is not "defenceless".
The NLAW round is 150mm diameter and has a length of 1m.
And in answer to Toppings comment about the location, it is specifically designed to be used "in densely forested terrain and even building interiors".
https://www.military-today.com/missiles/nlaw.htm
I have no idea if NLAWs did this (does it matter?) but they are certainly capable.
Russia is odds on to (eventually) successfully take Ukraine.
But the cities will be absolute bloodbaths for them. They won't be able to use artillery and rockets, because of the presence of their own soldiers, and the houses and tower blocks will be full of people with anti-tank weapons and rifles.
And let's not forget either that Russia is currently mostly fighting in the much more pro-Russian East of the country. What happens when their supply chains are stretched and they're attacking Lviv? Suddenly Russia has extremely stretched supply chains, while Ukraine does not.
You guys all have fun at Smarkets, and don't do anything I wouldn't
But its also Possible that Russia is trying to invoke Panic, and see giving this sort of info to India and other nations as a way of doing that.
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
The increasingly important issue is what happens if/when Russia occupies Ukraine. Because then the supply of munitions becomes a whole lot more problematic. By air? Well it will be "Russian airspace" by then; by land ie Poland? There is a cassus belli for the Russians right there to take action against (NATO member) Poland and who today thinks Putin certainly wouldn't.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
If there'd been any serious plan prior to the invasion, we'd have supplied a lot more kit a lot sooner.
As an aside, the manufacturer claims it is effective in built up areas, with a minimum range of 20m.
https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
Doesn't invalidate what Topping says, other than perhaps the bit about where it can be used.
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
The original goal of that war was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
https://twitter.com/mjhall0854/status/1498956394359410689?s=21
*sighs*
See Syria.
Putin is quite capable of ordering that.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs.
.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1499012600826322946
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
(Shame you can't be there)
https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1498998487324807168
"Here's our response to American sanctions! We don't fear you! We'll live without your nice 'pretty' things!"
.. takes hammer to his iPad.
It's one of the key reasons why he was always an unfit person to lead our great country.
We're just fighting back in a smart manner. What's more - we're fighting back in a successful manner too.
And do we really think Putin's game plan is to have an inkspot strategy in Ukraine. Not what all that armour says.
Intriguing for military historians in time to come.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
It raises the question why Johnson should be so set against. He is doing inactivity very masterfully at the moment (attending Ukrainian church services, pontificating in Poland etc). So why not crack down on Russian oligarchs?
Everyone posting of pictures of Prisoners of War on social media needs to stop.
Doing so risks breaching the Geneva Convention, which protects POWs from "public curiosity".
Ukraine's resistance against Russian aggression is righteous: there's no need to cross these red lines.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1499016352711028742
The West is reacting with overwhelming strength of purpose in Ukraine which is defeating your mate Putin.
You can keep sharing PJohnson's lies that Ukraine may as well surrender, but the rest of us won't believe it.
It may be that that is what people really want. But in most cases I think they think a no-fly zone is little more than a UN resolution.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
Artillery and drone strikes are also thought to have been deployed in the attack".
Someone googled it to make a point, and triggered you.
There's better reporting on selected bits of Twitter than in quite a lot of mainstream media.
They are in Ukraine because they have a madman determined to leave his mark on history. He will stop at Ukraine because....NATO. Meanwhile, we just let his country crumble from the inside out. Sanctions. And weaponry that keeps his shitty underpowered army bogged down.
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
Now it is of course possible that Putin is intent on eventually attacking NATO directly - though I suspect that after what he has seen in Ukraine he will be rethinking that. It is also possible he sees a nuclear war as inevitable in which case we are all screwed.
But for now he has not crossed that line. We cannot be the ones to cross it. If he attacks any NATO country then all bets are off and I would suggest everyone finds a very deep hole to die in but until then we need to hope our own leaders have enough sense to realise that this is not something we can win. In a direct war between NATO and Russia everyone loses.
However regardless of how they became rich they and their families are entitled to keep it in any society based on the rule of law
Could we start a 'No Fly Zone', over the western part of Ukraine,
Officerly to protect refugees, but also to allow us to fly weapons more directly to Ukraine rather than having to derive all the way form Poland?
Would that trigger a response? at the moment most of the Russian planes seem to be in the east or centre. Putin might look silly if he tyres to shoot down UK planes but doesn't have the ability?
Then we could slowly/incrementally move the edge east?
We entered into a treaty, and we've put boots on the ground in Estonia and Poland.
If Russia invades Poland or Estonia (and given their experiences in Ukraine, I suspect that is vanishingly unlikely now), then we are at war with Russia, and British troops and aircraft will be fighting their Russian counterparts.
That's what NATO means.
And yes but it's like the advertising thing isn't it. 50% of it is great, the problem is...
I think we should at least consider nuking Russia first.
- Keep Ukraine in
- Keep the West out
- Don't allow a Ukrainian identity independent of Russia
It looks like he's already gone backwards on all three aims with this invasion. To the extent Putin is addressing a perceived problem with this invasion, it was a problem of Putin's own creation. Twenty years ago you could plausibly claim, as Putin did then and still does now, that Ukraine isn't a proper country. Putin has helped to make it one.Unfortunately Putin losing (in these terms) doesn't mean Ukraine winning on what it wants.
The idea that Iraq had WMDs was not a lie, except in a way it was deliberate misinformation from the Saddam Hussein regime.
The Hussein regime deliberately created ambiguity as to whether they had WMDs. They wanted it to simultaneously be unable to be proven that they did, while simultaneously wanting people to believe that they did (and be afraid of them).
It served Saddam's purposes to have his local enemies think that he had WMDs and was willing to use them so that they couldn't challenge him.
It was an intelligence failing not to realise that Iraq had removed all their WMDs, but it was a failing the Iraqis wanted the world to have until it led to the invasion.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
So actually I do believe our leaders on this, for precisely the reason you seem to think they wouldn't act - Ukraine.
If Putin invades Poland, say, that is very very likely it, the end, MAD. Now, we might easily say it's worth all dying in order to maintain whatever principle we went into the game with but it is useful for all of us to ponder these questions.
It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not (it isn't, as it happens). The "world-leading" rhetoric on every single sodding thing is just fucking embarrassing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would think and say exactly the same thing if it were a Labour PM engaging in this childish boosterism.
Rather than the default setting of the non-psychopath.