What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Turkish-built drones played a significant role in Azerbaijan’s recent defeat of Armenia in the war there. Militaries around the world paid attention. The Russians have drones and have, of course, thought about what to do about Ukrainian drones. Indeed, at times Russia has boasted about its great anti-drone defences.
The question is not whether the Russia armed forces have thought about this, but whether they came up with the right answer. Hopefully, they made the same mistakes they seem to have made repeatedly in this invasion: they believed their own propaganda.
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Worth noting the veto has been transferred once. Until 1971 it belonged to the ROC on Taiwan. Who used it to block the admission of Mongolia. (Integral Chinese territory). It was transferred to the PRC after ROC's expulsion from the UN. So it wouldn't be unprecedented to give the veto to Kyrgyzstan or some such...
Yes but in reality once the PRC tested nuclear weapons in the 1960s it had to take ROC's permanent place on the UN Security Council
Why wasn't it vitally urgent between 1964 and 1971 then? And why aren't India and Pakistan there then? Like everything else. Much more than previously thought is possible with political will. COVID has shown that.
I don't agree with this kind of thing. Targeting individuals because of where they happen to be born is wrong. If they're proven to have connections with Putin fair enough, but blanket ban, no. It's tantamount to racism.
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Have a good evening those going tonight. Unfortunately, London on a Wednesday night was a non starter for me, indeed I'm at a stage where my attendance at big nights out is pretty limited. That said, I'd like to make a PB meet some day in the not too distant future, so I'll be keeping my eye out.
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
Important map from Ukraine’s state railway company @Ukrzaliznytsia identifies train stations still operating around the country and tho not working. Majority still operational but many in the north, east, and and large swath of the south/southeast are out of service. https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1499018095003942912
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
There are various claims floating around about the "New Tube For London" trains - that they will have the capability to run driverless. Is this the usual weasel words stuff? Leaving out the "..if you completely re-engineer the signalling and the lines and the platforms...."??
Driverless? No. Automated Train Operation? Yes. As has been the case since 1968. Most of the tube lines have at least sections of ATO operation. So the new trains will continue to operate ATO but will be able to go fully automatic as and when the infrastructure allows which will be in 20never.
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Worth noting the veto has been transferred once. Until 1971 it belonged to the ROC on Taiwan. Who used it to block the admission of Mongolia. (Integral Chinese territory). It was transferred to the PRC after ROC's expulsion from the UN. So it wouldn't be unprecedented to give the veto to Kyrgyzstan or some such...
Yes but in reality once the PRC tested nuclear weapons in the 1960s it had to take ROC's permanent place on the UN Security Council
Why wasn't it vitally urgent between 1964 and 1971 then? And why aren't India and Pakistan there then? Like everything else. Much more than previously thought is possible with political will. COVID has shown that.
India might well be added in future years as might Pakistan but every current UN Security Council permanent member has nuclear weapons and therefore none will be removed from it
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
Cartographic politics are a bloody minefield. Can lead to fisticuffs. Was a little of a West Wing episode about it ISTR. Not an impressive amount of a huge country whatever the case.
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?
You're using hyperbole, but if the fortune was acquired legally in Russia, and the oligarch checks out legally, then yes. At present you seem to be saying the richer the individual the less likely a candidate they are to come here. I find that counter-productive.
You said you were comfortable with taking anyone rich. I introduced the concern about how they made their wealth, which may not have been legally. I am glad you have now acknowledged my point by adding “if the fortune was acquired legally”. That is the crucial question you left out previously.
OK, so I’ve got you to accept that point. The next question is: how many Russian oligarchs do we think acquired their fortune legally? Given Russia is a dictatorship and it’s pretty difficult to make money without cosying up to known war criminal Putin and his kleptocratic regime, I suggest a pretty high proportion of the Russian oligarchs acquired a pretty high proportion of their fortunes in some pretty dodgy ways.
I don’t have exact numbers and cases will vary from person to person, but there’s a real concern that the former UK visa scheme was rather lax about these questions.
But I think we differ over our definition of legal. Mine is a strict definition. Your definition of illegal seems to wander into 'dodgy' or 'to do with Putin' or 'his regime'. Vladimir Putin is recognised as the President of Russia by our Government. His country has some of the trappings of democracy, but that's a bit beside the point, because we recognise several autocracies such as China and KSA anyway. Money gained by being in oil, gas or shipping, and by being pals with Putin, has not been gained illegally. Most serious money gained anywhere, even in the UK, is with the approval/acquiescence of the Government.
Important map from Ukraine’s state railway company @Ukrzaliznytsia identifies train stations still operating around the country and tho not working. Majority still operational but many in the north, east, and and large swath of the south/southeast are out of service. https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1499018095003942912
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
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 hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You do, as most of our nuclear missiles are on submarines not the mainland though in reality if a Russian nuclear missile was heading for the UK it would already nearly be the same as it having hit the UK anyway
Huh? The problem with ballistic missiles is that when you have a lot of potential targets in close proximity - such as European countries - you don't know where its going with any accuracy until after the boost phase and the warhead bus separates.
So once you fire your missiles and the other side detects them, they have a very limited time to process the data consider options and then respond. So most nuclear war scenarios have "launch on warning" - you launch a full counter-force strike against enemy targets once you detect missiles in flight.
So no, you really don't have a chance. If anyone fires a ballistic missile its *over*. Which is the utter futility of our Trident capability as (a) if we fire it during the first exchange we're likely aiming at empty silos and we're about to get utterly destroyed already or even better (b) we retain SLBMs for a 2nd strike should one be required.
If we fire Trident nuclear missiles we would be aiming at Moscow currently, not empty silos
Sure, a second strike would likely be countervalue, so yeah, Moscow. Though most counterforce targets go after 3C which would include capital cities so bye bye Moscow.
To go back to any kind of reality, a counterorce strike would primarily go after missile silos and airbases. You try and destroy them before they get used. Hence the "use them or lose them" decision that the president would be faced with.
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.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
The Lib Dems are especially skillful if I recall correctly, their bar charts are legendary for their accurate and honest portrayal of data.
Indeed they are. But in the last two Westminster byelections they did themselves less than justice.... Perhaps there were (and are) more traditional decent Conservatives switching over to the Lib Dems than you might think.
Even young HY shows signs of Lib Dem tendencies at times, when he forgets to toe the latest Boris line.
I did vote for the Tory candidate first and the LD candidate as my second preference in the PCC election last year, which used SV.
Yes, you are making good progress, young HY, and I do think that with just a bit more effort, you could actually come to give the Lib Dem candidate your first preference vote. Not just yet of course.
But the way things are going for the Conservative Party under Johnson, and the shameful way he is sheltering the wealth of dodgy Russian oligarchs who have made substantial donations to the Tory Party, more and more decent Conservatives are looking for a new home of which they need no longer feel ashamed.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
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?
You're using hyperbole, but if the fortune was acquired legally in Russia, and the oligarch checks out legally, then yes. At present you seem to be saying the richer the individual the less likely a candidate they are to come here. I find that counter-productive.
You said you were comfortable with taking anyone rich. I introduced the concern about how they made their wealth, which may not have been legally. I am glad you have now acknowledged my point by adding “if the fortune was acquired legally”. That is the crucial question you left out previously.
OK, so I’ve got you to accept that point. The next question is: how many Russian oligarchs do we think acquired their fortune legally? Given Russia is a dictatorship and it’s pretty difficult to make money without cosying up to known war criminal Putin and his kleptocratic regime, I suggest a pretty high proportion of the Russian oligarchs acquired a pretty high proportion of their fortunes in some pretty dodgy ways.
I don’t have exact numbers and cases will vary from person to person, but there’s a real concern that the former UK visa scheme was rather lax about these questions.
But I think we differ over our definition of legal. Mine is a strict definition. Your definition of illegal seems to wander into 'dodgy' or 'to do with Putin' or 'his regime'. Vladimir Putin is recognised as the President of Russia by our Government. His country has some of the trappings of democracy, but that's a bit beside the point, because we recognise several autocracies such as China and KSA anyway. Money gained by being in oil, gas or shipping, and by being pals with Putin, has not been gained illegally. Most serious money gained anywhere, even in the UK, is with the approval/acquiescence of the Government.
Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is legal, according to Russia. Maybe we should impose higher standards?
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
The difference between the two situations in Russian eyes is that between us starting WWIII, and their doing so.
That partly accounts for the logic - but I agree that it is vital that Putin believes we would fight if any NATO member state is attacked, if we are to avoid stumbling into nuclear exchanges.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
There are various claims floating around about the "New Tube For London" trains - that they will have the capability to run driverless. Is this the usual weasel words stuff? Leaving out the "..if you completely re-engineer the signalling and the lines and the platforms...."??
Driverless? No. Automated Train Operation? Yes. As has been the case since 1968. Most of the tube lines have at least sections of ATO operation. So the new trains will continue to operate ATO but will be able to go fully automatic as and when the infrastructure allows which will be in 20never.
Another thing to note about the DLR is that whilst it is 'driverless', every train should have a crew member on board - a train captain. They earn less than a tube driver, but it's still quite a cost.
So it needs to be made clear whether you are talking about 'driverless' or 'crewless' trains. The latter is where the money is really saved, but is much, much harder to get to. If you still need a crew member on the train, then the savings are just not there.
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
Fortunately, thus far his army seems to have walked and crawled on six crooked highways. And stopped in the middle of seven sad forests.
For now. The longer the better, for us not to find out.
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
I would add that when we say there is a '40 mile convoy' on the road to Kyiv, its sounds really intimidating.
But a more accurate description might be, the Russians who only control the big roads have continued to pore in vehicles on to those big roads and now have a 40 mile traffic jam.
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?
You're using hyperbole, but if the fortune was acquired legally in Russia, and the oligarch checks out legally, then yes. At present you seem to be saying the richer the individual the less likely a candidate they are to come here. I find that counter-productive.
You said you were comfortable with taking anyone rich. I introduced the concern about how they made their wealth, which may not have been legally. I am glad you have now acknowledged my point by adding “if the fortune was acquired legally”. That is the crucial question you left out previously.
OK, so I’ve got you to accept that point. The next question is: how many Russian oligarchs do we think acquired their fortune legally? Given Russia is a dictatorship and it’s pretty difficult to make money without cosying up to known war criminal Putin and his kleptocratic regime, I suggest a pretty high proportion of the Russian oligarchs acquired a pretty high proportion of their fortunes in some pretty dodgy ways.
I don’t have exact numbers and cases will vary from person to person, but there’s a real concern that the former UK visa scheme was rather lax about these questions.
But I think we differ over our definition of legal. Mine is a strict definition. Your definition of illegal seems to wander into 'dodgy' or 'to do with Putin' or 'his regime'. Vladimir Putin is recognised as the President of Russia by our Government. His country has some of the trappings of democracy, but that's a bit beside the point, because we recognise several autocracies such as China and KSA anyway. Money gained by being in oil, gas or shipping, and by being pals with Putin, has not been gained illegally. Most serious money gained anywhere, even in the UK, is with the approval/acquiescence of the Government.
Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is legal, according to Russia. Maybe we should impose higher standards?
You may think so. I think if the money has been acquired legally, and the person checks out, that works for me. Someone here posted this morning that Russian nationalist commentators are thrilled that Russian billionaires are going to have to live and spend their money in Russia. That's worth bearing in mind.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
Brings to mind this classic Yes Prime Minister sketch.
The premise is UK conventional forces would hold off the Russians for 72 hours and NATO troops are not sufficiently trained and mainly only active on certain days and the PM would have 12 hours to decide if to push the button or not
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
It'd also be interesting to know quantities available. How many have they produced?
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
Brings to mind this classic Yes Prime Minister sketch.
The premise is UK conventional forces would hold off the Russians for 72 hours and NATO troops are not sufficiently trained and mainly only active on certain days and the PM would have 12 hours to decide if to push the button or not
Mr. Boy, come live in Leeds. Our tube workers have never, ever gone on strike.
Ha ha. Leeds must have the worst public transport of any major city in Britain, I feel your pain.
The public transport is fine if you live further out - plenty of electric trains serving Airedale and Wharfedale, some of them almost brand new and the rest refurbished.
But live in the Leeds suburbs and all you've got is buses.
The buses are expensive too. It's cheaper and faster for me as a Leeds suburbanite to drive into the city, park around the South Bank (£1.50 for 2 hours) and then walk 5 mins into the actual centre itself. In contrast, it's a 5 min walk to the bus stop, up to 10 mins wait and £3+ return.
It shouldn't be the case in a major European city that it's easier, cheaper and quicker to drive and park in the city than it is to take a bus.
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
The difference between the two situations in Russian eyes is that between us starting WWIII, and their doing so.
That partly accounts for the logic - but I agree that it is vital that Putin believes we would fight if any NATO member state is attacked, if we are to avoid stumbling into nuclear exchanges.
It does boil down to that really. Provided Putin believes it really is "this far and no further" (or else) and he hasn't lost his marbles entirely, then the worst is off the table and we're looking at something truly terrible (for now and probably for a while to come) but for which there is at least a frame of reference and the possibility longer term of a positive outcome.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
'I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it'
Words not to live by on PB.
Any aspiring pundit knows ignorance or being wrong should never slow you down from a comment.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
It'd also be interesting to know quantities available. How many have they produced?
Well, the order was for 100 The factory said they made 80 The air force general said they received 60 The squadron leader says he received 40 An inspection of the hangar reveals 20 A flight test reveals 10 serviceable ones, half of which have weapons.
(All my estimated numbers, but based on the performance of the Russian Air Force in the past week).
Mr. Boy, come live in Leeds. Our tube workers have never, ever gone on strike.
Ha ha. Leeds must have the worst public transport of any major city in Britain, I feel your pain.
The public transport is fine if you live further out - plenty of electric trains serving Airedale and Wharfedale, some of them almost brand new and the rest refurbished.
But live in the Leeds suburbs and all you've got is buses.
The buses are expensive too. It's cheaper and faster for me as a Leeds suburbanite to drive into the city, park around the South Bank (£1.50 for 2 hours) and then walk 5 mins into the actual centre itself. In contrast, it's a 5 min walk to the bus stop, up to 10 mins wait and £3+ return.
It shouldn't be the case in a major European city that it's easier, cheaper and quicker to drive and park in the city than it is to take a bus.
To a NE resident a £3 return bus ticket and a 10 minutes wait is something we can only dream of.
Interesting thread on the power of (misleading) visuals - in this case maps (or "if LibDems did invasion maps"):
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
Ukraine claim to have shot down 3 of them in their Russian casualty reports.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
Ukraine claim to have shot down 3 of them in their Russian casualty reports.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
Ukraine claim to have shot down 3 of them in their Russian casualty reports.
Just a thought do you have the link to where the Ukrainians are repotting Russian casualty's?
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
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
I've been (with reluctance since it helps nobody and it's probably and hopefully being handled brilliantly by the people making the decisions) giving the "WW3" aspect a Big Brood and here's where I've got to:
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
Brings to mind this classic Yes Prime Minister sketch.
The premise is UK conventional forces would hold off the Russians for 72 hours and NATO troops are not sufficiently trained and mainly only active on certain days and the PM would have 12 hours to decide if to push the button or not
I rest easier having seen that! On the comedy gold resonances I was watching Ch4 news the other evening, Matt Frei arguing with this pro-Putin academic in Moscow, and in the middle of it we got from Matt the immortal, "I'm sorry, Dmitry".
Much as I would like to be with you all tonight, I am otherwise engaged, amongst other things I´m also an Honorary Consul in Estonia and have been dealing with citizens of the country who have been coming out of Russia by land. Buses and trains are full coming out (empty going back).
FWIW My view is that Putin has essentially lost this, even (or perhaps especially) if he finds some unlikely and brutal battlefield victory. The utter savagery he has unleashed, even on Russian schoolkids is utter desperation. Even if he occupies Ukraine, he can not hold it and there is little doubt that the morale of the Russian troops is getting worse, Cold, tired, dirty and hungry, and low on fuel, is not surprising that large chunks of the front have stopped. The fact that the Ukrainians can still counter attack is astonishing and now I sense that help is coming and if they can find a respite and hang on a few more days then the balance may swing in their favour.
Of course it matters that almost any civilised human is demonstrating support for Ukraine. In Estonia since Saturday we have already raised €1.50 from every citizen and the numbers increase every hour. Those going from Tallinn to pick up refugees at the Polish-Ukrainian border are taking supplies of all kinds, the government is extending all kinds of assistance and the idea that visas are even an issue is unthinkable. Tallinn is covered in Ukrainian flags and the Russian Embassy is a blue and gold poster and placard cenotaph.
I live two doors along from the Russian consulate and Embassy and it is clearly working long hours. No one stops or harangues their diplomats (easily identifiable by blue diplomatic plates beginning with 28 on their cars). They are simply shunned and ignored. It must be a lonely life right now.
We hear of growing unease in Russia, the demonstrations growing and the repression increasing. No one knows how long this will take, it might be days, weeks or months, but to me it seems far more likely that this leads to regime change in Moscow rather than Kyiv.
In the meantime we watch, and prepare for any last lash out from the trapped and dying regime.
Teie Terviseks PB sõbrad! Cheers to all PB friends
Good short thread just pulling together some thoughts on the 'what next' for occupied Ukrainian cities.
Basically: Ukrainian civil authorities will be of no help, and Russians have neither the time or money to set up parallel structures.
Either they need to garrison the city, or just accept that they'll lose control the moment they leave. If they garrison they can either set up a green zone, and cede the rest of the city to the Ukrainians, or try aggressive patrols and checkpoints. The former results in almost self-sieging, the latter is very attritional. In order to just to provide security to a people you need about 1 soldier for every 50 residents, but maybe as low as 1:20 if there's an active insurgency. For Kherson (pop: 300,000) that's about 6,000-15,000 troops.
The maths doesn't work, even if you use the most generous possible assumption of 1:50. Oh, and you need to find a way to supply them.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Perhaps the timing of the conflict is because Russia thought they were falling further behind on the drone and other tech side of things, eroding their troop number advantage, so it was now or never.
Just doing a quick google, it appears the Russians have both "suicide drones" and also their home grown equivalent of the Turkish TB2. Although again perhaps they aren't up to scratch.
Have we seen any evidence that they have used them?
Ukraine claim to have shot down 3 of them in their Russian casualty reports.
Just a thought do you have the link to where the Ukrainians are repotting Russian casualty's?
And that logic is also based on over fifty plus years of deterrence strategy, so there's at least an reasonable change it's ingrained in Putin, too.
Thanks for cool calm hand on fevered brow.
I find it astonishing that you are questioning the resolve to protect you of the man who saved you from Donald Trump, 'NATO slayer'.
Its also astonishing that I am not the only person picking up on the desperate weakness of the West's messaging.
When Ronald Reagan proposed the STAR WARS program in the 1980s, it was a mad fantasy that would never have worked and should never have been proposed.
But it served one purpose. It left the Warsaw Pact in no doubt that the West was packin' and had every intention of pulling them pistols if the Communists struck first. Every intention.
A few year later, communism collapsed.
Compared to that, today's messaging from the West is supine, gutless and cowardly. We clearly don't want to be attacked, and so its highly likely that we will be.
Bizarre the posters that think we’re not fighting back in any way. I can confirm that corporate Russia is already on its knees and it’s only Wednesday.
Meanwhile on the ground, such serious damage is being done to Russian’s reputation as a fearsome army that all they have left now is war crimes, due to a combination of fierce and brave Ukrainian resistance and weaponry manufactured outside of 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.
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 hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You do, as most of our nuclear missiles are on submarines not the mainland though in reality if a Russian nuclear missile was heading for the UK it would already nearly be the same as it having hit the UK anyway
It helps if you read all of the words, in the order in which I wrote them…. I was referring to US and French style systems. And “heading for the U.K.” isn’t an easy judgement.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
There are various claims floating around about the "New Tube For London" trains - that they will have the capability to run driverless. Is this the usual weasel words stuff? Leaving out the "..if you completely re-engineer the signalling and the lines and the platforms...."??
Driverless? No. Automated Train Operation? Yes. As has been the case since 1968. Most of the tube lines have at least sections of ATO operation. So the new trains will continue to operate ATO but will be able to go fully automatic as and when the infrastructure allows which will be in 20never.
Another thing to note about the DLR is that whilst it is 'driverless', every train should have a crew member on board - a train captain. They earn less than a tube driver, but it's still quite a cost.
So it needs to be made clear whether you are talking about 'driverless' or 'crewless' trains. The latter is where the money is really saved, but is much, much harder to get to. If you still need a crew member on the train, then the savings are just not there.
I see there's another strike on.
They must have heard about the PB event. Attack the Elite, Comrades !!!
Comments
The question is not whether the Russia armed forces have thought about this, but whether they came up with the right answer. Hopefully, they made the same mistakes they seem to have made repeatedly in this invasion: they believed their own propaganda.
And why aren't India and Pakistan there then?
Like everything else. Much more than previously thought is possible with political will. COVID has shown that.
A lot of people try to make sense of the current crisis with maps, so why don't we talk a bit about why the approach of the majority of media in this regard is not the best. And why it might actually (inadvertently) represent the way Putin wants us to think. (Source: Guardian) 1/
Reality:
What Putin would like us to think:
https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260?s=20&t=bTyOwzUGHzHHjlitoZ2DtQ
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1499018095003942912
https://maphub.net/Cen4infoRes/russian-ukraine-monitor
Not an impressive amount of a huge country whatever the case.
Joe Biden has taken pains to make 2 things clear. NATO will not defend Ukraine. NATO *will* engage if a member state is attacked.
It’s vital Putin believes the second message however the logic isn’t 100% fool-proof. He might decide the main reason NATO isn’t prepared to defend Ukraine is not because they aren’t in NATO but because of the risk of nuclear war. In which case, he might ask himself, what if he invades one of the Baltic states?
Ok, so it’s in NATO but why (other than a treaty and the rhetoric) is the situation any different? The fundamentals of responding look the same as regards the risk of nuclear war with Russia. If NATO is staying out of Ukraine for fear of that prospect why should this calculus not prevail again now? The Baltics are a long way from New York.
So, as I see it, the most likely way this spirals into something cataclysmic is if Putin doubts the American resolve to defend small NATO countries in the East and is subsequently proven to have been wrong to doubt it. That's a Hard Rain right there.
To go back to any kind of reality, a counterorce strike would primarily go after missile silos and airbases. You try and destroy them before they get used. Hence the "use them or lose them" decision that the president would be faced with.
But the way things are going for the Conservative Party under Johnson, and the shameful way he is sheltering the wealth of dodgy Russian oligarchs who have made substantial donations to the Tory Party, more and more decent Conservatives are looking for a new home of which they need no longer feel ashamed.
Two
World Wars
Auxiliary
Territorial
Service
as outlined in yesterday’s #RealDailyBriefing (https://youtu.be/lS_I5XVfmCY), delivered by a real government minister. Honest.
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1499029512302243845
(captured Russian soldiers)
That partly accounts for the logic - but I agree that it is vital that Putin believes we would fight if any NATO member state is attacked, if we are to avoid stumbling into nuclear exchanges.
So it needs to be made clear whether you are talking about 'driverless' or 'crewless' trains. The latter is where the money is really saved, but is much, much harder to get to. If you still need a crew member on the train, then the savings are just not there.
And stopped in the middle of seven sad forests.
For now. The longer the better, for us not to find out.
I would add that when we say there is a '40 mile convoy' on the road to Kyiv, its sounds really intimidating.
But a more accurate description might be, the Russians who only control the big roads have continued to pore in vehicles on to those big roads and now have a 40 mile traffic jam.
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1499038698435919883
The premise is UK conventional forces would hold off the Russians for 72 hours and NATO troops are not sufficiently trained and mainly only active on certain days and the PM would have 12 hours to decide if to push the button or not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YR6WICIAI
It shouldn't be the case in a major European city that it's easier, cheaper and quicker to drive and park in the city than it is to take a bus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP78ofbxdFU
I don't think it will make a big defiance but good to see.
The factory said they made 80
The air force general said they received 60
The squadron leader says he received 40
An inspection of the hangar reveals 20
A flight test reveals 10 serviceable ones, half of which have weapons.
(All my estimated numbers, but based on the performance of the Russian Air Force in the past week).
😂😂😂😂
FWIW My view is that Putin has essentially lost this, even (or perhaps especially) if he finds some unlikely and brutal battlefield victory. The utter savagery he has unleashed, even on Russian schoolkids is utter desperation. Even if he occupies Ukraine, he can not hold it and there is little doubt that the morale of the Russian troops is getting worse, Cold, tired, dirty and hungry, and low on fuel, is not surprising that large chunks of the front have stopped. The fact that the Ukrainians can still counter attack is astonishing and now I sense that help is coming and if they can find a respite and hang on a few more days then the balance may swing in their favour.
Of course it matters that almost any civilised human is demonstrating support for Ukraine. In Estonia since Saturday we have already raised €1.50 from every citizen and the numbers increase every hour. Those going from Tallinn to pick up refugees at the Polish-Ukrainian border are taking supplies of all kinds, the government is extending all kinds of assistance and the idea that visas are even an issue is unthinkable. Tallinn is covered in Ukrainian flags and the Russian Embassy is a blue and gold poster and placard cenotaph.
I live two doors along from the Russian consulate and Embassy and it is clearly working long hours. No one stops or harangues their diplomats (easily identifiable by blue diplomatic plates beginning with 28 on their cars). They are simply shunned and ignored. It must be a lonely life right now.
We hear of growing unease in Russia, the demonstrations growing and the repression increasing. No one knows how long this will take, it might be days, weeks or months, but to me it seems far more likely that this leads to regime change in Moscow rather than Kyiv.
In the meantime we watch, and prepare for any last lash out from the trapped and dying regime.
Teie Terviseks PB sõbrad! Cheers to all PB friends
Good short thread just pulling together some thoughts on the 'what next' for occupied Ukrainian cities.
Basically: Ukrainian civil authorities will be of no help, and Russians have neither the time or money to set up parallel structures.
Either they need to garrison the city, or just accept that they'll lose control the moment they leave. If they garrison they can either set up a green zone, and cede the rest of the city to the Ukrainians, or try aggressive patrols and checkpoints. The former results in almost self-sieging, the latter is very attritional. In order to just to provide security to a people you need about 1 soldier for every 50 residents, but maybe as low as 1:20 if there's an active insurgency. For Kherson (pop: 300,000) that's about 6,000-15,000 troops.
The maths doesn't work, even if you use the most generous possible assumption of 1:50. Oh, and you need to find a way to supply them.
https://www.rferl.org/a/zelenskiy-trolls-putin-ukraine/31356912.html
Russia has tried (and failed) to occupy this (old) thread
Its also astonishing that I am not the only person picking up on the desperate weakness of the West's messaging.
When Ronald Reagan proposed the STAR WARS program in the 1980s, it was a mad fantasy that would never have worked and should never have been proposed.
But it served one purpose. It left the Warsaw Pact in no doubt that the West was packin' and had every intention of pulling them pistols if the Communists struck first. Every intention.
A few year later, communism collapsed.
Compared to that, today's messaging from the West is supine, gutless and cowardly. We clearly don't want to be attacked, and so its highly likely that we will be.
Meanwhile on the ground, such serious damage is being done to Russian’s reputation as a fearsome army that all they have left now is war crimes, due to a combination of fierce and brave Ukrainian resistance and weaponry manufactured outside of Ukraine.
They must have heard about the PB event. Attack the Elite, Comrades !!!