I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
That would be nice. The trouble is that at a moral level the existence of mutually assured destruction not only changes the textbooks for generals about how to fight, it changes entirely the landscape of what constitutes a just war. To wage a just war (both secular and religious traditions are onto this) one of the features has to be proportion, risk, the chance of winning, of doing more good than harm and so on.
So in 1939 we went into war with Germany, after Poland, having weighed up the prospects. It may well have been a balanced decision, with arguments on both sides.
Now imagine that in 1939 Germany held the power to destroy in 24 hours the entire of western Europe and North America and we had no way of stopping it.
What would we have decided?
That's what our leaders face now. God help them.
Hitler was so close to getting nukes first. It is a truly terrifying concept and counter-factual, and of course the basis for The Man in the High Castle. A world where Hitler wins and rules the planet
The difference between that idea, and what we face now, is that both sides - many sides - have nukes. A Mexican stand off
He was no-where near. If the attempted reactor in Bavaria had a bit more heavy water, it would have run away and achieved the world's first melt down. The German scientists on the project were out of their depth
That's interesting - any decent site with more info, please?
Pictures of the re-creation (there's a museum there now)
As to the likely result of running it - see "Hitler's Nuclear Weapons" by Geoffrey Brooks. There was no control system. If it had gone critical, it would have run away in seconds, killing the operators with radiation and escalating to... fun...
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
You're asking a democratic government to trust a war criminal who is currently committing crimes against them. Without security guarantees, and that means NATO, how does that work ?
This is a reasonable question.
I think it needs to be something like no NATO troops/weapons in Ukraine, but a real & binding guarantee that any further aggression by Russia will mean NATO intervenes militarily in any war.
I am sympathetic to Russia's position on the Crimea -- less so on Donetsk/Luhansk.
This way, though Russia has perhaps been given more territory than it would have won through a plebiscite -- but the quid pro quo is that Russia must accept it has no right to the rest of the Ukraine and if it invades, it would be met by NATO forces.
When reading Bernard Cornwall's non-fiction book on Waterloo there was an amusing part on letters/reports on conditions, with the newer troops moaning, while veterans from the Peninsula War were basically going 'You think this is bad? Try sleeping uncovered in the Pyrenees after a day's march and no rations'.
Sounds like a Yorkshireman from four yourkshiremans sketch. 🙂 “Pyrenees? pah wish I had a mountain to sleep on. You should try it down a hole, in the dark with an owl.
Talking of Yorkshireman Dad wrote history of battle of Waterloo as though it was a cricket match. First of all they have pitch inspection and agree to delay the start. The French win the toss and insert the allies, who get off to a bad start with the bat, but star Prussian all rounder turns up late and makes a big score, also returns the best bowling figures. Or something like that off top of me head.
It would be interesting to know how official Chinese state media are reporting this war. Are they leaning sympathetically to one side or the other, or are they enacting strict neutrality (and how do you do that in such a one-sided war?)
"China's fundamental position on the Ukraine issue is open, transparent and consistent, as the country always maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday in a phone conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
Wang said China called for Russia and Ukraine to find solutions to the problem through negotiations and supports all constructive international efforts conducive to the political settlement of the current crisis.
Wang said China deeply regrets that a conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia, and is extremely concerned about the harm to civilians, adding that the immediate priority is to try the utmost to defuse the situation and prevent the conflict from escalating or even getting out of control."
I'm always fascinated at being told how long leaders spoke for on the phone. Apparently Macron and Putin spoke for 90 minutes. Even assuming some delays for translations, what on earth did they spend all that time talking about?
IIUC the previous calls involved long lectures involving a lot of revisionist history, Putin's got really into it
This happens to old men in Japan as well, once they get too old for sport.
But never on PB thank God
Btw I think there's a translation issue whether Macron said he feared worse was to come, or the worst - pire or le pire
Berlin has approved a shipment of 2,700 Soviet-era "Strela" missiles to Ukraine, according to government sources cited by news agencies. The weapons would come out of the depots once overseen by Soviet-controlled East Germany
I wonder how many actually work / aren't rusted to bits?
30 year old solid rocket fuel will be *made* of cracks. If you fire one of those it will explode on launch. Unless rocket motors have been replaced, somehow?
It would be interesting to know how official Chinese state media are reporting this war. Are they leaning sympathetically to one side or the other, or are they enacting strict neutrality (and how do you do that in such a one-sided war?)
At a guess they are focussing on the Par-Olympics for which they invested Billions.
But I would be interested to know what they are saying.
It would be interesting to know how official Chinese state media are reporting this war. Are they leaning sympathetically to one side or the other, or are they enacting strict neutrality (and how do you do that in such a one-sided war?)
"China's fundamental position on the Ukraine issue is open, transparent and consistent, as the country always maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday in a phone conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
Wang said China called for Russia and Ukraine to find solutions to the problem through negotiations and supports all constructive international efforts conducive to the political settlement of the current crisis.
Wang said China deeply regrets that a conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia, and is extremely concerned about the harm to civilians, adding that the immediate priority is to try the utmost to defuse the situation and prevent the conflict from escalating or even getting out of control."
When you have the Chinese raising an eyebrow at you and thinking what you're doing is a bit much...
When reading Bernard Cornwall's non-fiction book on Waterloo there was an amusing part on letters/reports on conditions, with the newer troops moaning, while veterans from the Peninsula War were basically going 'You think this is bad? Try sleeping uncovered in the Pyrenees after a day's march and no rations'.
Sounds like a Yorkshireman from four yourkshiremans sketch. 🙂 “Pyrenees? pah wish I had a mountain to sleep on. You should try it down a hole, in the dark with an owl.
Talking of Yorkshireman Dad wrote history of battle of Waterloo as though it was a cricket match. First of all they have pitch inspection and agree to delay the start. The French win the toss and insert the allies, who get off to a bad start with the bat, but star Prussian all rounder turns up late and makes a big score, also returns the best bowling figures. Or something like that off top of me head.
Ah man I'd love to be able to send that to my Dad who is a Napoleonic Wars and Cricket obsessive. Why do the two seem to go together?
I like the idea, but I think that its hard to do that, I think almost Unamity is needed so could easily be blocked by the handful of nations still supporting it. but happy to be corrected by the PB Brains trust.
It would be interesting to know how official Chinese state media are reporting this war. Are they leaning sympathetically to one side or the other, or are they enacting strict neutrality (and how do you do that in such a one-sided war?)
"China's fundamental position on the Ukraine issue is open, transparent and consistent, as the country always maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday in a phone conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
Wang said China called for Russia and Ukraine to find solutions to the problem through negotiations and supports all constructive international efforts conducive to the political settlement of the current crisis.
Wang said China deeply regrets that a conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia, and is extremely concerned about the harm to civilians, adding that the immediate priority is to try the utmost to defuse the situation and prevent the conflict from escalating or even getting out of control."
When you have the Chinese raising an eyebrow at you and thinking what you're doing is a bit much...
I can't read the Chinese version, that is obviously the English version. But it certainly isn't Russian propoganda. Consider: "Russian troops will carry out an attack on what they said was the infrastructure of Ukraine's intelligence services in Kyiv and urged residents living nearby to leave, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday." "What they said"?
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
AIUI the British were expected to eat Mars Bars that were a decade out of date - the Iranian Mars Bars from a contract that got cancelled, like Shir aka Challenger, when the Shah fell. I'd bloody grumble if I were fed those.
Boris Johnson announced during PMQs yesterday a Putin cronies list will be published.
Exciting stuff!
Except 24 hours later we still haven't been told 1/ what it is exactly 2/ what it is for 3/ how many people on it 4/ will those on be sanctioned 5/ when it is coming
(1) Crimea (2) The Eastern provinces that were de facto independent (3) Demilitirization
Is a good one. But it seems reasonable - wouldn't you agree - that the party that demilitirizes is the one with the recent history of invading its neighbours. Unlike with the Ukraine in 1994, I would suggest it is allowed to keep its nuclear weapons, but that it loses its offensive military capability, but retains an internal security force of some kind
Reasonable?
Would it not be wonderful if Russia loses its offensive military capability? Absolutely, yes.
If you can negotiate it .... great.
I was trying to make a suggestion that is reasonably practical and gave both sides rationale & incentive to stop the fighting.
Except it gives that to only one side. From Ukraine's POV, the only incentive is a temporary cessation of the violence against them.
No. Russia will have to withdraw from territory it now occupies.
Except for a palace coup (imo unlikely), a continuing war will draw a boundary more unfavourable to the Ukraine.
For avoidance of doubt, I don't think Russia can subdue the whole of the Ukraine, but I think it can subdue the East and South.
Berlin has approved a shipment of 2,700 Soviet-era "Strela" missiles to Ukraine, according to government sources cited by news agencies. The weapons would come out of the depots once overseen by Soviet-controlled East Germany
I wonder how many actually work / aren't rusted to bits?
30 year old solid rocket fuel will be *made* of cracks. If you fire one of those it will explode on launch. Unless rocket motors have been replaced, somehow?
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
I wonder if the Ukrainians got rid of every single nuclear weapon? Wonder if a few have been kept back?
I don't really care about the yachts. Want I want to know is whether and when Putin's allies will stop being able to leverage their assets in the UK of personal gain, or to evade economic sanctions on Russia (e.g. by providing a supply of GBP).
Seizure is a clear third for me, but I don't really know how effective the first two are. The sales of key assets are promising, but I don't know what proportion that meaningfully represents.
Public executions, ‘all of Ukraine’…. Every time I leave the news and return, the news gets worse
Putin is deranged. Which means this really could end in nukes
I am increasingly sure we will see the first use of nukes on european soil in coming weeks as desperation takes hold. Probably battlefield variety, but god knows. Putin has lost it. Totally fecking tonto.
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
Well, I could easily think of ways of increasing the misery if you asked me to, but no. I think this situation is inherently misery-inducing and all options are bad. But before we even get there, we have to ask what's possible.
What's not possible: 1 EU accession as a guarantor of peace 2 Taking back Ukraine by force without bad consequences 3 Regime change instigated from outwith without bad consequences
So that leaves: 4 Sit and hope that Putin changes his mind 5 Continue to arm the resistance and take an opportunity for a negotiated conclusion if and when a trustworthy Russian leader emerges 6 Give Ukraine up completely 7 Pay the Danegeld (have Ukraine sign away occupied areas) and hope the Dane doesn't come back next year (despite Ukraine not being fully defended)
And of uncertain possibility: 8 Give up chunks of Ukraine and have the rest enter into a formal defence pact (NATO or adjunct)
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
I wonder if the Ukrainians got rid of every single nuclear weapon? Wonder if a few have been kept back?
Apparently they did. Unfortunately for them (at least according to articles on this subject)
There is speculation Putin is aiming his troops at nuclear power stations (amongst other things) so that the Ukes won’t even have the option of a dirty bomb, as retaliation, if Putin drops a nuke on Odessa
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
The solution is to go back to the Budapest Memorandum. Russia doesn't deserve "concessions".
Maybe the whole of the RU leadership, MPs etc have all gone tonto as well?
max seddon @maxseddon · 23m Russian MPs – including Andrei Lugovoi, of Litvinenko poisoning fame – are introducing a bill to send anyone arrested protesting the war in Ukraine to "perform military service on the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics"
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Public executions, ‘all of Ukraine’…. Every time I leave the news and return, the news gets worse
Putin is deranged. Which means this really could end in nukes
I am increasingly sure we will see the first use of nukes on european soil in coming weeks as desperation takes hold. Probably battlefield variety, but god knows. Putin has lost it. Totally fecking tonto.
I’m not ‘pretty sure’ like you, but the chances of a nuke going off, in Europe, quite soon, have gone from minuscule to definitely non-negligible in about a week. And the chances are growing. This is properly dangerous
Maybe the whole of the RU leadership, MPs etc have all gone tonto as well?
max seddon @maxseddon · 23m Russian MPs – including Andrei Lugovoi, of Litvinenko poisoning fame – are introducing a bill to send anyone arrested protesting the war in Ukraine to "perform military service on the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics"
Well Russia's 'donated' loads of military equipment to Ukraine already, might as well go the whole hog and give them fighters to man them.
Andrew Roth @Andrew__Roth · 1h Stunning that Kremlin has barely made an effort to stop panic among Russian urban elites that Putin is about to close the borders or declare martial law. Any normal government would be mortified at these optics. Here, we have a few denials during Peskov's daily press call.
I expect Labour to hold Birmingham Erdington with a small swing from the Tories, otherwise little change.
The seat was 63% Leave so Tory voters there should like Boris more than the average Tory voter, so the Tory vote should hold up OK.
May not be a good night for the LDs though in this strong Leave constituency. Even in 2019 the Brexit Party beat the LDs for 3rd and the Liberals will be at risk of coming 5th or even 6th behind RefUK, Nellist and the Greens
They did in December 2019. He still got an 80 seat majority though....
A General Election vote is not at all the same as a poll on whether the PM should resign.
In general, a reasonably high proportion of non-Tory voters will say no, the (Tory) PM should not resign (ditto if there's a Labour PM). That's presumably on the basis that the PM resigning doesn't mean an election - it means replacement by another Conservative MP. Similarly, some people who intend to vote Tory do want the PM to resign - they want a Tory PM, but ideally not this one.
Looking back to 2019, had a poll been taken immediately after the election, I am sure a large majority would have said the PM should not resign. Indeed, I'd certainly have said "no" even though I didn't and wouldn't vote for him. He'd won an election and had won the right to give it a go.
It's important not to confuse these things. The majority who want Johnson to resign will include significant numbers of people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who the Conservatives need to be on board in 2023/24. That's a real problem and can't be airily wished away.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
What we do is maintain the economic pressure, provide weapons, training, and bases to insurgents, and make it clear that any encroachment on the territory of a NATO member or Finland or Sweden will incur terrible retaliation.
I am shocked that the EU are saying this, shocked I tell you.
Getting deep scepticism from senior lawyers that the Pannick amendment -as was accepted in 2018 - is the reason for UK's slower sanctions than EU has been able to implement. Under EU law the same basic requirements apply. Many emphasising there should be no difference in speed.
Whenever Johnson is in a tight spot he says whatever he needs to to get out of it. The fine words will be followed by prevarication, backsliding, kicks into the long grass and outright lies. Anyone who expects otherwise just hasn't been paying attention.
Berlin has approved a shipment of 2,700 Soviet-era "Strela" missiles to Ukraine, according to government sources cited by news agencies. The weapons would come out of the depots once overseen by Soviet-controlled East Germany
I wonder how many actually work / aren't rusted to bits?
30 year old solid rocket fuel will be *made* of cracks. If you fire one of those it will explode on launch. Unless rocket motors have been replaced, somehow?
Maybe the idea is to ship them to the Russian side?
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
If polling is right, Labour should expect a large swing?
It will get a swing but likely less so than nationally as Erdington was 63% Leave. There has been less swing in the polls of Tory Leave voters to Starmer Labour since 2019 compared to Tory Remain voters.
The former were more likely to be voting for Boris and Brexit, the latter more against Corbyn
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
Well, I could easily think of ways of increasing the misery if you asked me to, but no. I think this situation is inherently misery-inducing and all options are bad. But before we even get there, we have to ask what's possible.
What's not possible: 1 EU accession as a guarantor of peace 2 Taking back Ukraine by force without bad consequences 3 Regime change instigated from outwith without bad consequences
So that leaves: 4 Sit and hope that Putin changes his mind 5 Continue to arm the resistance and take an opportunity for a negotiated conclusion if and when a trustworthy Russian leader emerges 6 Give Ukraine up completely 7 Pay the Danegeld (have Ukraine sign away occupied areas) and hope the Dane doesn't come back next year (despite Ukraine not being fully defended)
And of uncertain possibility: 8 Give up chunks of Ukraine and have the rest enter into a formal defence pact (NATO or adjunct)
So, of those options,
4. Certainly the best, but also hugely unlikely.
5. Probably what will happen. Probably also the bloodiest.
6. Unacceptable
7/8 The next best after 4. Provided the chunks of Ukraine given away are just Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk & the fighting and shelling stops immediately & Russia vacates the rest of the Ukraine.
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
You're asking a democratic government to trust a war criminal who is currently committing crimes against them. Without security guarantees, and that means NATO, how does that work ?
This is a reasonable question.
I think it needs to be something like no NATO troops/weapons in Ukraine, but a real & binding guarantee that any further aggression by Russia will mean NATO intervenes militarily in any war.
I am sympathetic to Russia's position on the Crimea -- less so on Donetsk/Luhansk.
This way, though Russia has perhaps been given more territory than it would have won through a plebiscite -- but the quid pro quo is that Russia must accept it has no right to the rest of the Ukraine and if it invades, it would be met by NATO forces.
That still does not work from Ukraine's POV. What is to prevent NATO undoing them should Putin decide another round of nuclear blackmail is in order ?
NATO works because the guarantee is self-reinforcing. To abandon one member would leave all the rest wondering if they were next, so there's a very strong incentive to stick together.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
What we do is maintain the economic pressure, provide weapons, training, and bases to insurgents, and make it clear that any encroachment on the territory of a NATO member or Finland or Sweden will incur terrible retaliation.
Why aren’t they complaining about the US which is working to the same timetable as the U.K.?
Maybe cos the US are not claiming to be "leading" the World
But the US really do set the example, in all sanctions in recent years the US have always gone further than everyone else. After Salisbury atrocity US sanctioned UK based Russians UK didn’t even touch. US does lead world on tough Russia sanctions.
I’ll concede though, announcements from everyone is merely that to an extent the devil will be in the detail of what really happens, especially the EU who after Salisbury announced sanctions in solidarity with us which amounted to too easily by passed. Don’t trust em.
Presumably public executions of captured POWs is a full on, no fecking doubt about it, war crime?
As is the shelling of cities. That can't be argued as 'collateral damage' - militarily, there is no justification for it other than the targeting of civilians.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
My view is our only hope is either that enough of those around Putin realise he is nuts and act to save their country from incalculable misery for years or the Chinese stage an intervention.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
Massively dangerous if they try and fail though.
How can it get more dangerous than it is? Putin is already a crazed Hitler who waves his H bombs at the world, with unnerving conviction
As an aside. Trump and Bannon and Flynn and co. will be watching exactly how Putin is controlling the media, comms and thus the population of RU and taking careful notes.
The 2022 Beijing Winter Paralympics starts today - and in a major U-turn, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) announced a ban on Russian and Belarus athletes from competing, even as neutrals, just hours before the opening ceremony.
However, China, which is hosting the Games, has been trying to maintain a positive public opinion towards the event by seemingly censoring the information.
Chinese media has not reported it. On Weibo, China’s equivalent of Twitter, nothing comes up when searching for "IPC bans Ukraine and Russia".
Topics praising the event, such as "#Beijing Paralympics is also amazing”, are now trending. Most comments under the topics are proud of China.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase.
That is exactly right.
Notwithstanding his comments along the lines of "a world without Greater Russia is not a world worth having" there must be a point at which he believes it would be counterproductive to push onwards. But goodness only knows what that point is.
He presumably knows that anything outside Ukraine will invite retaliation, while nothing inside will. I imagine that a nuclear blast inside Ukraine will, on account of the fallout, count as an event outside Ukraine also.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
Massively dangerous if they try and fail though.
How can it get more dangerous than it is? Putin is already a crazed Hitler who waves his H bombs at the world, with unnerving conviction
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
What we do is maintain the economic pressure, provide weapons, training, and bases to insurgents, and make it clear that any encroachment on the territory of a NATO member or Finland or Sweden will incur terrible retaliation.
We can do that for NATO nations not for Finland and Sweden unless they join NATO sad to say.
At the moment if Putin invaded Finland or Georgia he would likely face economic sanctions only, same as Ukraine. Only if he invaded a NATO nation could he face a military response
SCOOP: Biden is poised to impose sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs and their families TODAY, sources tell @nwadhams and me. The sanctions will be in keeping with EU measures but broader, prohibiting the oligarchs’ travel to US and also targeting their families. https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1499409767479091209
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
Massively dangerous if they try and fail though.
How can it get more dangerous than it is? Putin is already a crazed Hitler who waves his H bombs at the world, with unnerving conviction
Presumably public executions of captured POWs is a full on, no fecking doubt about it, war crime?
As is the shelling of cities. That can't be argued as 'collateral damage' - militarily, there is no justification for it other than the targeting of civilians.
We are going to need a much bigger prison at the Hague hopefully.
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
You're asking a democratic government to trust a war criminal who is currently committing crimes against them. Without security guarantees, and that means NATO, how does that work ?
This is a reasonable question.
I think it needs to be something like no NATO troops/weapons in Ukraine, but a real & binding guarantee that any further aggression by Russia will mean NATO intervenes militarily in any war.
I am sympathetic to Russia's position on the Crimea -- less so on Donetsk/Luhansk.
This way, though Russia has perhaps been given more territory than it would have won through a plebiscite -- but the quid pro quo is that Russia must accept it has no right to the rest of the Ukraine and if it invades, it would be met by NATO forces.
That still does not work from Ukraine's POV. What is to prevent NATO undoing them should Putin decide another round of nuclear blackmail is in order ?
NATO works because the guarantee is self-reinforcing. To abandon one member would leave all the rest wondering if they were next, so there's a very strong incentive to stick together.
Any "solution" hits this problem - any guarantee for Ukraine that doesn't consist of "at the pleasure of Russia" will upset Putin & Co.
They are fighting a war so that Ukraine exists or not at their whim, and does not get guarantees from outsiders.
SCOOP: Biden is poised to impose sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs and their families TODAY, sources tell @nwadhams and me. The sanctions will be in keeping with EU measures but broader, prohibiting the oligarchs’ travel to US and also targeting their families. https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1499409767479091209
Bill Gates' friendship with 'evil and abhorrent' Jeffrey Epstein a factor in $105 billion divorce, says ex-wife Melinda
Bill Gates continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein despite warnings that the financier was “evil and abhorrent,” Melinda French Gates has revealed, in her first interview since their divorce.
Bill Gates' friendship with 'evil and abhorrent' Jeffrey Epstein a factor in $105 billion divorce, says ex-wife Melinda
Bill Gates continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein despite warnings that the financier was “evil and abhorrent,” Melinda French Gates has revealed, in her first interview since their divorce.
Berlin has approved a shipment of 2,700 Soviet-era "Strela" missiles to Ukraine, according to government sources cited by news agencies. The weapons would come out of the depots once overseen by Soviet-controlled East Germany
I wonder how many actually work / aren't rusted to bits?
30 year old solid rocket fuel will be *made* of cracks. If you fire one of those it will explode on launch. Unless rocket motors have been replaced, somehow?
Batteries too.
The assessment of the situation with Stingers sent to Afghanistan was that you could get round the other problems in some way - old thermal, one-shot batteries could be replaced with a jury rigged connection to a car battery with a bit of electronics - but that the solid motor problem was terminal.
At least in the Stinger's case, the solid fuel is poured around parts of the missile - you can't simply slot another motor on. Even if you scrapped the old motor out by hand, pouring a new one isn't practical.
If polling is right, Labour should expect a large swing?
It will get a swing but likely less so than nationally as Erdington was 63% Leave. There has been less swing in the polls of Tory Leave voters to Starmer Labour since 2019 compared to Tory Remain voters.
The former were more likely to be voting for Boris and Brexit, the latter more against Corbyn
I agree with you. The fact that Labours MP was popular may have disguised how it’s a leave seat not a Labour seat and how popular and strong the Tories are in the midlands. Plus Labour have picked a poor candidate. They appear to be too complacent about this election. Both those things predict a poor result everyone can say is a surprise but shouldn’t be really, as poor candidate and complacency mean labour lose votes to not just Tories but Libdems and TUC. Plus with our country at war it could make the electorate more unpredictable, why not a rally round flag bounce for Tories? I wouldn’t be hugely surprised to wake up to find Tories have won.
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?
I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).
So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.
And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.
I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.
Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.
So we should, in fact, by saying "thank you, Mr Putin!"
And what about accession processes and criteria? What about the veto each EU country has on admitting new members? I guess this is why Putin has such long tables, because the sheer number of people you'd need to have sitting around a table to thrash out your "deal" is boggling. I'm trying to stay polite and not say what I really think of your scheme, because I really don't want to put people off thinking creatively, but I'm certain you haven't put a second of thought into the practicalities. Your plan is... psychedelic.
Let"s see how this ends up.
But, if Ukraine gets partitioned, and there are many years of instability & war, then Ukraine will be far worse off.
Do the Palestinians deserve to be living in a tiny portion of the territory that they formerly occupied? No.
Northern Cyprus is 1/3 of the island of Cyprus. Before the invasion of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots were ~ 18 per cent of the population. Were Turkish Cypriots entitled to 33 per cent of the island? No.
The boundary that is drawn by war will probably be worse for Ukraine.
If you don't like my solution, come up with a better one (which obviously has to have some concessions to both sides).
Make Russia bleed until it withdraws back to the 2021 lines of control. Wait for Putin to die and then open talks with his successor about renormalising relations.
Right, so ... let it bleed.
This does depend on when Putin dies, and who his successor is. Only then does the bleeding stop.
But if Putin is reasonably long-lived and chooses his successor, then your proposal might actually end up maximising the sum total of human misery (Ukrainian & Russian) .
You're asking a democratic government to trust a war criminal who is currently committing crimes against them. Without security guarantees, and that means NATO, how does that work ?
This is a reasonable question.
I think it needs to be something like no NATO troops/weapons in Ukraine, but a real & binding guarantee that any further aggression by Russia will mean NATO intervenes militarily in any war.
I am sympathetic to Russia's position on the Crimea -- less so on Donetsk/Luhansk.
This way, though Russia has perhaps been given more territory than it would have won through a plebiscite -- but the quid pro quo is that Russia must accept it has no right to the rest of the Ukraine and if it invades, it would be met by NATO forces.
That still does not work from Ukraine's POV. What is to prevent NATO undoing them should Putin decide another round of nuclear blackmail is in order ?
NATO works because the guarantee is self-reinforcing. To abandon one member would leave all the rest wondering if they were next, so there's a very strong incentive to stick together.
Any "solution" hits this problem - any guarantee for Ukraine that doesn't consist of "at the pleasure of Russia" will upset Putin & Co.
They are fighting a war so that Ukraine exists or not at their whim, and does not get guarantees from outsiders.
Yep. it's pretty much the concept of 'is Ukraine allowed to be a sovereign nation or not' and thats something which really shouldn't be a debate.
If polling is right, Labour should expect a large swing?
It will get a swing but likely less so than nationally as Erdington was 63% Leave. There has been less swing in the polls of Tory Leave voters to Starmer Labour since 2019 compared to Tory Remain voters.
The former were more likely to be voting for Boris and Brexit, the latter more against Corbyn
I agree with you. The fact that Labours MP was popular may have disguised how it’s a leave seat not a Labour seat and how popular and strong the Tories are in the midlands. Plus Labour have picked a poor candidate. They appear to be too complacent about this election. Both those things predict a poor result everyone can say is a surprise but shouldn’t be really, as poor candidate and complacency mean labour lose votes to not just Tories but Libdems and TUC. Plus with our country at war it could make the electorate more unpredictable, why not a rally round flag bounce for Tories? I wouldn’t be hugely surprised to wake up to find Tories have won.
God I hope not. That would nail Pig Dog in place for a decade
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
Remember that bad taste joke I made about ‘first strike against Russia’ a week back. It wasn’t funny then, it’s even less funny now.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
Massively dangerous if they try and fail though.
How can it get more dangerous than it is? Putin is already a crazed Hitler who waves his H bombs at the world, with unnerving conviction
Civil war.
Why would there be civil war?
If there is a successful coup there is no guarantee that the entirety of the Russian military and security apparatus will fall in behind the new leadership and the new direction. If the coup fails but some of the leaders escape, there is no guarantee that elements of the military wouldn’t declare for the plotters instead of the incumbent Putin government.
" Putin is said to have told Mr Macron in a 90-minute call that he had no plans to stop the invasion, will continue until he takes the whole of Ukraine, and may then add extra security demands on top of the ones he had already sent to the US and NATO. The attack will continue 'without compromises' until 'the end', Putin said."
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in terms of rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of increasing public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
Bill Gates' friendship with 'evil and abhorrent' Jeffrey Epstein a factor in $105 billion divorce, says ex-wife Melinda
Bill Gates continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein despite warnings that the financier was “evil and abhorrent,” Melinda French Gates has revealed, in her first interview since their divorce.
I am shocked that the EU are saying this, shocked I tell you.
Yes - it seems the unity against the common enemy has turned to bashthe UK - and predictably fanned by Scotty and the Grauniad. I'm old enough to remember the Great Vaccine War...
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
He might be mad enough to try a Stalinist purge of any of the elite who oppose him.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Bill Gates' friendship with 'evil and abhorrent' Jeffrey Epstein a factor in $105 billion divorce, says ex-wife Melinda
Bill Gates continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein despite warnings that the financier was “evil and abhorrent,” Melinda French Gates has revealed, in her first interview since their divorce.
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
He might be mad enough to try a Stalinist purge of any of the elite who oppose him.
Won't he soon be running out of money to pay his massive security establishment that protects him.
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
He might be mad enough to try a Stalinist purge of any of the elite who oppose him.
I'm sure he is, but will it work? The world - even RU - is a million times more complex than in Stalins day. And these people are stupendously rich and have power and presumably ways of getting things done that are not just about The Party.
If polling is right, Labour should expect a large swing?
It will get a swing but likely less so than nationally as Erdington was 63% Leave. There has been less swing in the polls of Tory Leave voters to Starmer Labour since 2019 compared to Tory Remain voters.
The former were more likely to be voting for Boris and Brexit, the latter more against Corbyn
I agree with you. The fact that Labours MP was popular may have disguised how it’s a leave seat not a Labour seat and how popular and strong the Tories are in the midlands. Plus Labour have picked a poor candidate. They appear to be too complacent about this election. Both those things predict a poor result everyone can say is a surprise but shouldn’t be really, as poor candidate and complacency mean labour lose votes to not just Tories but Libdems and TUC. Plus with our country at war it could make the electorate more unpredictable, why not a rally round flag bounce for Tories? I wouldn’t be hugely surprised to wake up to find Tories have won.
God I hope not. That would nail Pig Dog in place for a decade
No it won’t. Elections are just one offs.
Boris has been lucky to have more than two years, whatever his skill set, good or ill he ain’t no Primeminister. He could totter into an abyss any moment and every history book will conclude he had no one to blame for it but himself.
Berlin has approved a shipment of 2,700 Soviet-era "Strela" missiles to Ukraine, according to government sources cited by news agencies. The weapons would come out of the depots once overseen by Soviet-controlled East Germany
I wonder how many actually work / aren't rusted to bits?
30 year old solid rocket fuel will be *made* of cracks. If you fire one of those it will explode on launch. Unless rocket motors have been replaced, somehow?
I don't know - the portable SAMs seem to have pretty long service lives.
Judging by the figures on its combat performance, it's pretty useless again anything but helicopters anyway.
" Putin is said to have told Mr Macron in a 90-minute call that he had no plans to stop the invasion, will continue until he takes the whole of Ukraine, and may then add extra security demands on top of the ones he had already sent to the US and NATO. The attack will continue 'without compromises' until 'the end', Putin said."
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
Wow. It appears that Russian propaganda outlet RT is removing some of their articles about thermobaric bombs from the internet — specifically the ones where they describe them as “devastating” and “organ destroying” when used by other countries.
That feels significant, even hopeful. Russian business people don’t want to end up like starving North Koreans. Nor do they want to die of radiation poisoning
He might be mad enough to try a Stalinist purge of any of the elite who oppose him.
No might about it. I am sure he would. He knows that if he falls he is quite unlikely to get a pleasant retirement. He is said to be obsessed with the videos of Gaddafi’s final moments: beaten, sodomised, then butchered.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position.
We also in the West might find a partition settlement less satisfactory than we might have a week ago, because we lack a guarantee that - essentially - Putin is not going to go even more nuts and invade the Baltics etc.
Therefore, if militarily neutral Ukraine is part of the equation, we also need some kind of military forebearance commmitment from Russia.
I hope we (the US, or perhaps France) are activating our back channels with China. I think this whole shitshow is being looked on with horror by Beijing and they are in a position to pressure Russia toward a deal.
" Putin is said to have told Mr Macron in a 90-minute call that he had no plans to stop the invasion, will continue until he takes the whole of Ukraine, and may then add extra security demands on top of the ones he had already sent to the US and NATO. The attack will continue 'without compromises' until 'the end', Putin said."
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
Just trying to confuse us all.
That's what I would think, if there wasn't already quite obviously increasing public and institutional dissent in the general background, too..
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Presumably public executions of captured POWs is a full on, no fecking doubt about it, war crime?
As is the shelling of cities. That can't be argued as 'collateral damage' - militarily, there is no justification for it other than the targeting of civilians.
We are going to need a much bigger prison at the Hague hopefully.
I can only conclude that James Melville is like the bus in Speed. Somebody planted a bomb in his head some time ago and if he stops tweeting bad takes for a day it explodes.
Had the opportunity to read the Evening Standard on my way to and from last nite's party. The coverage of the invasion was extensive and not at all what Putin would have approved of.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
I think China will be very satisfied with the situation. Its making them look like the adults in the room, it's giving them a desperate trading partner to sell them lots of cheap gas, and buy lots of manufactured goods, it's weakening a potential future geopolitical rival.
Comments
Putin is deranged. Which means this really could end in nukes
Ukraine calls on all nations to suspend Russia from participating at the @wto
Says it has withdrawn all @wto benefits to Russia, citing the WTO's Art. 21 national security exemption.
Letter 👇
https://twitter.com/bbaschuk/status/1499311899300802564?
I really liked Genesis of the Daleks.
I think it needs to be something like no NATO troops/weapons in Ukraine, but a real & binding guarantee that any further aggression by Russia will mean NATO intervenes militarily in any war.
I am sympathetic to Russia's position on the Crimea -- less so on Donetsk/Luhansk.
This way, though Russia has perhaps been given more territory than it would have won through a plebiscite -- but the quid pro quo is that Russia must accept it has no right to the rest of the Ukraine and if it invades, it would be met by NATO forces.
What Really Happened At Agincourt - https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/348382-french-version-battle-agincourt.html#post4484416
The original version was written on soc.history.what-if by a poster whose name I have forgotten {hangs head in shame}
"From a distance" would appear to be the truth.
"China's fundamental position on the Ukraine issue is open, transparent and consistent, as the country always maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday in a phone conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
Wang said China called for Russia and Ukraine to find solutions to the problem through negotiations and supports all constructive international efforts conducive to the political settlement of the current crisis.
Wang said China deeply regrets that a conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia, and is extremely concerned about the harm to civilians, adding that the immediate priority is to try the utmost to defuse the situation and prevent the conflict from escalating or even getting out of control."
Btw I think there's a translation issue whether Macron said he feared worse was to come, or the worst - pire or le pire
But I would be interested to know what they are saying.
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1499403491172777986
Exciting stuff!
Except 24 hours later we still haven't been told
1/ what it is exactly
2/ what it is for
3/ how many people on it
4/ will those on be sanctioned
5/ when it is coming
Strange.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1499397539652530186
Was the timing linked to the fact MPs were bound to grill Johnson on not doing more during PMQs? No10 denied that suggestion today.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1499397539652530186?s=20&t=DV9EYU9MB1SLkd9lFjmRUw
Except for a palace coup (imo unlikely), a continuing war will draw a boundary more unfavourable to the Ukraine.
For avoidance of doubt, I don't think Russia can subdue the whole of the Ukraine, but I think it can subdue the East and South.
Seizure is a clear third for me, but I don't really know how effective the first two are. The sales of key assets are promising, but I don't know what proportion that meaningfully represents.
What's not possible:
1 EU accession as a guarantor of peace
2 Taking back Ukraine by force without bad consequences
3 Regime change instigated from outwith without bad consequences
So that leaves:
4 Sit and hope that Putin changes his mind
5 Continue to arm the resistance and take an opportunity for a negotiated conclusion if and when a trustworthy Russian leader emerges
6 Give Ukraine up completely
7 Pay the Danegeld (have Ukraine sign away occupied areas) and hope the Dane doesn't come back next year (despite Ukraine not being fully defended)
And of uncertain possibility:
8 Give up chunks of Ukraine and have the rest enter into a formal defence pact (NATO or adjunct)
There is speculation Putin is aiming his troops at nuclear power stations (amongst other things) so that the Ukes won’t even have the option of a dirty bomb, as retaliation, if Putin drops a nuke on Odessa
Somehow Ukraine's airforce are still launching planes for bombing runs. Astonishing Russian incompetence.
max seddon
@maxseddon
·
23m
Russian MPs – including Andrei Lugovoi, of Litvinenko poisoning fame – are introducing a bill to send anyone arrested protesting the war in Ukraine to "perform military service on the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics"
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
"I cannot understand why these conditions should impede sanctions if there is a case for imposing them against an individual. Under EU law the same basic requirements apply." https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1499401810276077570
@Andrew__Roth
·
1h
Stunning that Kremlin has barely made an effort to stop panic among Russian urban elites that Putin is about to close the borders or declare martial law. Any normal government would be mortified at these optics. Here, we have a few denials during Peskov's daily press call.
In general, a reasonably high proportion of non-Tory voters will say no, the (Tory) PM should not resign (ditto if there's a Labour PM). That's presumably on the basis that the PM resigning doesn't mean an election - it means replacement by another Conservative MP. Similarly, some people who intend to vote Tory do want the PM to resign - they want a Tory PM, but ideally not this one.
Looking back to 2019, had a poll been taken immediately after the election, I am sure a large majority would have said the PM should not resign. Indeed, I'd certainly have said "no" even though I didn't and wouldn't vote for him. He'd won an election and had won the right to give it a go.
It's important not to confuse these things. The majority who want Johnson to resign will include significant numbers of people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who the Conservatives need to be on board in 2023/24. That's a real problem and can't be airily wished away.
I presume western intel agencies are checking out their options in terms of whacking Putin. If not they should be. The best case scenario for the entire fucking world is Putin mysteriously falling out of a window this evening
The former were more likely to be voting for Boris and Brexit, the latter more against Corbyn
4. Certainly the best, but also hugely unlikely.
5. Probably what will happen. Probably also the bloodiest.
6. Unacceptable
7/8 The next best after 4. Provided the chunks of Ukraine given away are just Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk & the fighting and shelling stops immediately & Russia vacates the rest of the Ukraine.
What is to prevent NATO undoing them should Putin decide another round of nuclear blackmail is in order ?
NATO works because the guarantee is self-reinforcing. To abandon one member would leave all the rest wondering if they were next, so there's a very strong incentive to stick together.
I’ll concede though, announcements from everyone is merely that to an extent the devil will be in the detail of what really happens, especially the EU who after Salisbury announced sanctions in solidarity with us which amounted to too easily by passed. Don’t trust em.
The Dems have to stop him in 2024.
However, China, which is hosting the Games, has been trying to maintain a positive public opinion towards the event by seemingly censoring the information.
Chinese media has not reported it. On Weibo, China’s equivalent of Twitter, nothing comes up when searching for "IPC bans Ukraine and Russia".
Topics praising the event, such as "#Beijing Paralympics is also amazing”, are now trending. Most comments under the topics are proud of China.
Forget the lying, he’s an appalling leader just from a basic competence perspective.
Notwithstanding his comments along the lines of "a world without Greater Russia is not a world worth having" there must be a point at which he believes it would be counterproductive to push onwards. But goodness only knows what that point is.
He presumably knows that anything outside Ukraine will invite retaliation, while nothing inside will. I imagine that a nuclear blast inside Ukraine will, on account of the fallout, count as an event outside Ukraine also.
But yes, all we can hope is that a point exists.
At the moment if Putin invaded Finland or Georgia he would likely face economic sanctions only, same as Ukraine. Only if he invaded a NATO nation could he face a military response
The sanctions will be in keeping with EU measures but broader, prohibiting the oligarchs’ travel to US and also targeting their families.
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1499409767479091209
They are fighting a war so that Ukraine exists or not at their whim, and does not get guarantees from outsiders.
#BREAKING Russian oil giant Lukoil calls for halt to Ukraine war
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1499410431726731271
Bill Gates continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein despite warnings that the financier was “evil and abhorrent,” Melinda French Gates has revealed, in her first interview since their divorce.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/03/bill-gates-met-epstein-warned-evil-abhorrent-financier-says/
At least in the Stinger's case, the solid fuel is poured around parts of the missile - you can't simply slot another motor on. Even if you scrapped the old motor out by hand, pouring a new one isn't practical.
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in terms of rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of increasing public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
‘Invaders attacked civilians who stood in their way and entered #Enerhodar - home to Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.’
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1499405734043271173?s=21
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-03/eu-seeks-to-suspend-russia-s-most-favored-nation-status-at-wto?sref=kiFHtrGv @bpolitics
Boris has been lucky to have more than two years, whatever his skill set, good or ill he ain’t no Primeminister. He could totter into an abyss any moment and every history book will conclude he had no one to blame for it but himself.
Judging by the figures on its combat performance, it's pretty useless again anything but helicopters anyway.
https://twitter.com/rvawonk/status/1499379864167755777?s=21
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse.
(2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position.
We also in the West might find a partition settlement less satisfactory than we might have a week ago, because we lack a guarantee that - essentially - Putin is not going to go even more nuts and invade the Baltics etc.
Therefore, if militarily neutral Ukraine is part of the equation, we also need some kind of military forebearance commmitment from Russia.
I hope we (the US, or perhaps France) are activating our back channels with China. I think this whole shitshow is being looked on with horror by Beijing and they are in a position to pressure Russia toward a deal.
EU urges UK to act faster before Russian assets are spirited away https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/eu-urges-uk-to-act-faster-before-russian-assets-are-spirited-away
Surely not...
“Can you hold out against Russian forces”
“I don’t know”
“Will you stay in Kyiv?”
“Yes!”
Tired but strong & defiant and demanding a no-fly zone to save the nation.
https://twitter.com/IanPannell/status/1499413854891221001/photo/1
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
https://twitter.com/AppleHelix/status/1499374424012869634
https://twitter.com/Dorianlynskey/status/1499386141782556673