People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
So I presume you supported military intervention in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Syra, in northern Nigeria, in Chechnya, in Yemen too, conflicts which were often just as brutal as Ukraine if not worse with terrible atrocities and where we did nothing militarily in most of them?
Your comment 'the species is unimportant' is so ludicrous as to be barely worthy of comment, however going to war with Russia over Ukraine if it leads to WW3, nuclear war and the death of hundreds of millions or even billions rather than the thousands so far in Ukraine would not have been worth doing on any definition.
Yes in a few billion years time the Sun may explode but by then we may be living on a different planet or even a different galaxy anyway, however that is no excuse for a possible third world war or even nuclear war which is still avoidable
The upside to the Earth being engulfed in the fiery nuclear plasma of the Sun is that the place that elected you, and all its people, will be completely ionised and lost in heaving sea of fire. There's always a positive.
Though as a Christian I also believe in eternal life anyway, hopefully far away from you.
Given that comment I would not be certain you will escape the eternal fiery furnace even in the afterlife!
What has eternal life got to do with the human race? Eternal life is not dependent on humans.
Why is our narcissistic destructive and cruel specie important?
I am and was distraught and appalled at the genocide and mindless killing in all those conflicts. I support any action to try to reduce thise events in the lives of all peoples.
The earth was gifted to us by God, that is why.
There have been genocides across centuries of human history and plenty of animals kill each other as much as humans do.
We cannot realistically get involved militarily in every conflict that takes place in any one corner of the globe at any one time.
We are certainly not getting involved in a conflict involving a military superpower and a non NATO nation
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
So I presume you supported military intervention in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Syra, in northern Nigeria, in Chechnya, in Yemen too, conflicts which were often just as brutal as Ukraine if not worse with terrible atrocities and where we did nothing militarily in most of them?
Your comment 'the species is unimportant' is so ludicrous as to be barely worthy of comment, however going to war with Russia over Ukraine if it leads to WW3, nuclear war and the death of hundreds of millions or even billions rather than the thousands so far in Ukraine would not have been worth doing on any definition.
Yes in a few billion years time the Sun may explode but by then we may be living on a different planet or even a different galaxy anyway, however that is no excuse for a possible third world war or even nuclear war which is still avoidable
The upside to the Earth being engulfed in the fiery nuclear plasma of the Sun is that the place that elected you, and all its people, will be completely ionised and lost in heaving sea of fire. There's always a positive.
Though as a Christian I also believe in eternal life anyway, hopefully far away from you.
Given that comment I would not be certain you will escape the eternal fiery furnace even in the afterlife!
As fiery chat up lines go, you two are breaking new ground. Get a room! :-)
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
@HYUFD you have a special talent. You even being on the same side of an argument to me (though you inevitably get there with more selfish and unpleasant logic - like here where you have questioned fighting for NATO’s newer members before and say unpleasant things about Ukraine) is enough to always make me question my position…..
Only if you're prepared to quantify risk, realistically.
Is ANY chance of nuclear war too much to save Ukarine?
Or is there a small enough chance, that you can realistically evaluate and attach to real world events, where you'd save Ukraine?
If not Ukraine is already dead to you. Whatever crap you choose to say for them.
Are you really for them or not?
We can supply them that is it.
If they want to defend their country they will have to do it themselves or come to an agreement with Russia not to join NATO
Throw them to the wolf.
To buy your temporary sanctuary.
I hope you don't get away from the wolf.
The whole point of NATO and our nuclear deterrent is a last resort defence against Russia. Not going on offence in a conflict on the other side of the continent in Russia's own backyard with a no fly zone and troops for a non NATO nation.
@HYUFD you have a special talent. You even being on the same side of an argument to me (though you inevitably get there with more selfish and unpleasant logic - like here where you have questioned fighting for NATO’s newer members before and say unpleasant things about Ukraine) is enough to always make me question my position…..
Well good, as I would equally question my position every time I somehow end up on the same side of the argument as you
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
Those numbers are…. well I was trying to think of an analogy and I can’t. Wow. I am starting to think Ukraine yet might push them back, with the help we can give.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
Those numbers are…. well I was trying to think of an analogy and I can’t. Wow. I am starting to think Ukraine yet might push them back, with the help we can give.
If this isn't maskirovka, then victory for Ukraine is surely likely. It's not just the scale of the losses, but the relatively modest size of the invading force that makes it so dire. The 200k were already insufficient to adequately encircle and siege Kyiv, and there's little sign of backup arriving.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
Those numbers are…. well I was trying to think of an analogy and I can’t. Wow. I am starting to think Ukraine yet might push them back, with the help we can give.
If this isn't maskirovka, then victory for Ukraine is surely likely. It's not just the scale of the losses, but the relatively modest size of the invading force that makes it so dire. The 200k were already insufficient to adequately encircle and siege Kyiv, and there's little sign of backup arriving.
At this point, you would have to say the deception was involving some top quality method acting if it was deception.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
We have not abandoned Ukraine. We have pretty much gone as far as we can, short of direct confrontation with The Bear. We have inflicted the most severe sanctions known - on a nuclear power - we are clearly supplying the best possible weapons to the Ukes. We can see UK (and other) Special Forces at work right now in Ukraine
But Russia IS a nuclear power and it IS ruled by a tyrant showing signs of outright madness. The only sane approach is fully-armed caution
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Around Moscow?
Does Russia have anti-aircraft missiles near Moscow that can hit Ukraine? I thought the nearest effective ones they had were just beyond the border.
The longest range systems (S400) can hit targets over Ukraine, from deep into Russia. 400km range.....
I'll be seriously impressed if it can actually take down a modern jet at 400km range
The S-400 has been a total disaster - whether because the Russians don't know if planes are Russian or Ukrainian (and therefore are hesitant to launch), or because it simply doesn't work, we don't know.
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
We couldn’t not. We are there on the border between NATO and Russia. No further orders required - the red army shoots and our chaps shoot back.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
Every man becomes a bit of a Nazi when he starts fighting
My guess is that the crew of tank sporting Confederate Flag were from one of the Southern states? Where until fairly recently it was NOT considered inherently racist, but instead (for most who flew it occasionally) a symbol of regional pride.
For example, Johnny Cash used it from time to time, to represent his roots and as part of American heritage. No way HE was a Nazi, that'[s for damn sure.
True enough that Southern Cross DOES have racist origin, and has been overtly flaunted by racists. Yet that is NOT universal, or even the majority. Though nowadays, most of those who saw it as representing their personal heritage, have indeed given it up, at least in public.
And in Georgia & Mississippi these folks were instrumental in having the Confederate removed from the state flags.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
"Priti Patel to allow 20,000 more Ukrainian refugees into the UK Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Russian soldiers rteturning from war will be censored in the Russian media like everything else. That's even if they disobey their commanders and break army secrecy rules.
This is a fascinating article of the mass non-cooperation in Russian-held cities in Ukraine. Thousands are protesting daily. It's clear that the moment Russian troops move on or resistance troops turn up, the city will revolt and go back to Ukrainian hands:
I think in a week or so Russian will take the Black Sea coast and strategic cities to encircle Ukrainian troops in Eastern Ukraine. Lots of people will say Russia will now win. But this will be a mirage because they will not be able to hold cities long term. And given the non-compliance of the populace, that means 10,000+ troops in every place of 200k. It isn't possible, and the Russian economic crisis will be getting worse week by week.
Russian soldiers calling home to boast about all the stuff they have stolen from Ukrainians civilians, and how they killed civilians so they couldn't report their position.
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
We couldn’t not. We are there on the border between NATO and Russia. No further orders required - the red army shoots and our chaps shoot back.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
Since the P in PB stands for pedantry, the Red Army stopped being the Red Army in 1946 (about the time they stopped being 'our brave allies') and was the Soviet Army for the rest of the existence of the SU.
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
We couldn’t not. We are there on the border between NATO and Russia. No further orders required - the red army shoots and our chaps shoot back.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Russian soldiers rteturning from war will be censored in the Russian media like everything else. That's even if they disobey their commanders and break army secrecy rules.
Bit difficult to censor lost limbs, or hands with blackened stumps of fingers through frostbite...
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Russian soldiers rteturning from war will be censored in the Russian media like everything else. That's even if they disobey their commanders and break army secrecy rules.
Bit difficult to censor lost limbs, or hands with blackened stumps of fingers through frostbite...
You can prevent news of it appearing in the media which is where 99% of people get their information from.
We took note of Russia’s false claims about alleged U.S. biological weapons labs and chemical weapons development in Ukraine. We’ve also seen Chinese officials echo these conspiracy theories.
Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.
We took note of Russia’s false claims about alleged U.S. biological weapons labs and chemical weapons development in Ukraine. We’ve also seen Chinese officials echo these conspiracy theories.
Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.
Russia can't use biological or chemical weapons because it is a party to the treaties (BWC, CWC) which bans their production, stockpiling, transfer or use, and so does not have any of either weapons type. You can use what you don't have ....
Thank you! I couldn't really keep away but managed to chill out a bit. I've been morbidly afraid of nuclear war ever since my teens. My mum says it's because I was born on the week of the Chernobyl disaster. When I was about 16 I bought a NBC suit, gas mask and Geiger counter. I've fetched those out of the wardrobe now.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
Disturbing thread. The 1200 confirmed civilian deaths reported in Mariupol is clearly an underestimate, and things will get rapidly worse for the 300k trapped there as supplies and water run out.
https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1501627882925342723 Today, I attended an emergency online conference of 🇺🇦 mayors from Mariupol, Kharkiv, Trostianets (Sumy region), Merefa (Kharkiv region), and Zhytomyr organized by the Ministry for Regional Development. What the mayors reported raises alarms on many different levels. A small 🧵
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
Dreadful. I wonder whether he reported this group to the Australian authorities.
Russia launches a false-flag operation, saying the Ukraine used chemical weapons. China agrees. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. We do nothing. (Witness Syria - thanks Ed!) Russia takes over Ukraine, having destroyed the cities. We do nothing. Then there are more false-flag attacks against Moldova. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. we do nothing (Moldova are not in NATO)
Rinse and repeat. Goodness know how China will use this to their advantage.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
You might have been right, had Putin gone for Estonia first. But things have changed, and now you are wrong.
Russia launches a false-flag operation, saying the Ukraine used chemical weapons. China agrees. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. We do nothing. (Witness Syria - thanks Ed!) Russia takes over Ukraine, having destroyed the cities. We do nothing. Then there are more false-flag attacks against Moldova. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. we do nothing (Moldova are not in NATO)
Rinse and repeat. Goodness know how China will use this to their advantage.
As @MrEd has rightly pointed out, China very definitely does not want Russia to use tactical nukes. Because if they do, then nuclear proliferation in the Far East becomes inevitable, and that is not in China's interest. (And nor, of course, is the world becoming a smoking ruin.)
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
Dreadful. I wonder whether he reported this group to the Australian authorities.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
Arguably worse, since in the former two, American radio encouraged the population to rise up against the Russians, and we didn’t even send weapons, but left them to it.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
A few points here:
1. It seems US intelligence when it comes to the casualty rates may have been behind the curve for whatever reasons. Chances are it gets revised up sharply again to get closer to European estimates;
2. While Ukrainian losses will also be high (although they are defending in many cases), Ukraine also is getting fresh “reserves”, not only via the call up / returnees but also foreign soldiers coming in (many of whom would have fighting experience). Chances are the Ukrainian forces’ coherence is, net-net, close to where it was at the start;
3. Related to 2, Ukraine has been capturing material which, in effect, is not only replacing its losses but is an effective upgrade on what they had. So nearly all their tank losses have been T-64s and they are capturing significant amounts of T-72s, T-80s etc
There is a lot in the idea that we are going to have to fight, and the sooner the better. It is our fate, and whatever happens, happens. Because otherwise we are simply submitting to an aggressor, and giving up.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
A few points here:
1. It seems US intelligence when it comes to the casualty rates may have been behind the curve for whatever reasons. Chances are it gets revised up sharply again to get closer to European estimates;
2. While Ukrainian losses will also be high (although they are defending in many cases), Ukraine also is getting fresh “reserves”, not only via the call up / returnees but also foreign soldiers coming in (many of whom would have fighting experience). Chances are the Ukrainian forces’ coherence is, net-net, close to where it was at the start;
3. Related to 2, Ukraine has been capturing material which, in effect, is not only replacing its losses but is an effective upgrade on what they had. So nearly all their tank losses have been T-64s and they are capturing significant amounts of T-72s, T-80s etc
How wrong people were to compare Putin to Hitler. He's starting to look more like Crassus. If only he were leadng his troops in person.
We took note of Russia’s false claims about alleged U.S. biological weapons labs and chemical weapons development in Ukraine. We’ve also seen Chinese officials echo these conspiracy theories.
Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.
Russia can't use biological or chemical weapons because it is a party to the treaties (BWC, CWC) which bans their production, stockpiling, transfer or use, and so does not have any of either weapons type. You can use what you don't have ....
I don't want it to become received wisdom that Johnson has been saved by the war. He could still be ditched before the GE. I don't think so but he might be. It depends on the polls. Plus he might not have been ditched in any case. Lying to parliament, breaking Covid laws, generally being corrupt, this clearly isn't enough for Tory MPs. It would have depended on the polls. Common thread - the polls.
It almost seems bad taste discussing our party politics in the current situation but here is an idle thought. If Ukraine situation is resolved in next 12 months then Johnson will decide to go rather than risk being ousted or losing the election having decided he has enough for his 3 volume memoirs?
I really don’t get the received wisdom here that he’s a busted flush. Absent anything new from the police, leading to a proper bollocking, I think he’s now safe from the party stuff and has an evens chance of winning the next election. I only think his chances of that are as low as evens because the police might yet scupper his hopes.
But something new from the police is highly likely and the publication of the actual, full Gray report is inevitable. Those predicting Johnson will stay seem to ignore these obvious threats. How bad they’ll be for Johnson, we don’t know, but they’re coming.
I don't want it to become received wisdom that Johnson has been saved by the war. He could still be ditched before the GE. I don't think so but he might be. It depends on the polls. Plus he might not have been ditched in any case. Lying to parliament, breaking Covid laws, generally being corrupt, this clearly isn't enough for Tory MPs. It would have depended on the polls. Common thread - the polls.
It almost seems bad taste discussing our party politics in the current situation but here is an idle thought. If Ukraine situation is resolved in next 12 months then Johnson will decide to go rather than risk being ousted or losing the election having decided he has enough for his 3 volume memoirs?
I really don’t get the received wisdom here that he’s a busted flush. Absent anything new from the police, leading to a proper bollocking, I think he’s now safe from the party stuff and has an evens chance of winning the next election. I only think his chances of that are as low as evens because the police might yet scupper his hopes.
But something new from the police is highly likely and the publication of the actual, full Gray report is inevitable. Those predicting Johnson will stay seem to ignore these obvious threats. How bad they’ll be for Johnson, we don’t know, but they’re coming.
While there's support for the way we're aiding the Ukraine military, there's rising anger over the treatment of refugees. And I don't think he can shuffle it all off onto the Pritster.
Disturbing thread. The 1200 confirmed civilian deaths reported in Mariupol is clearly an underestimate, and things will get rapidly worse for the 300k trapped there as supplies and water run out.
https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1501627882925342723 Today, I attended an emergency online conference of 🇺🇦 mayors from Mariupol, Kharkiv, Trostianets (Sumy region), Merefa (Kharkiv region), and Zhytomyr organized by the Ministry for Regional Development. What the mayors reported raises alarms on many different levels. A small 🧵
That’s very sad to read. Mariopol in particular looks terrible, the city surrounded and under fire, with no electricity and water.
Mr. Chris, Crassus was seeking to avenge his son, and was fighting against another great power. Putin was attempting to bully/destroy a much smaller country for precise reasons that remain elusive.
The Lithuanian capital Vilnius has given the Russian embassy a new address on “Ukrainian Heroes’ Street” to protest Moscow’s invasion of its pro-western neighbour.
“From today, the business card of every employee of the Russian embassy will be decorated with a note honouring Ukraine’s fighting, and everyone will have to think about the atrocities of the Russian regime against the peaceful Ukrainian nation when writing this street name,” Vilnius mayor Remigijus Simasius claimed in a statement.
Until now, the Russian embassy has taken its address from nearby Latvian Street, whose name remains unchanged.
But a hitherto nameless smaller road leading straight to the embassy acquired the Ukrainian moniker.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I am centre-left and apparently my desire not to have the world blow up is being "scared of standing up to Putin".
There are two intertwined but separate issues: the inhumanity and incompetence of this corrupt lying government, and the war. You can oppose the former's actions whilst being broadly supportive of the NATO/EU response. The latter point is not partisan.
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
There is a lot in the idea that we are going to have to fight, and the sooner the better. It is our fate, and whatever happens, happens. Because otherwise we are simply submitting to an aggressor, and giving up.
I've said this ever since Putin was mad enough to invade and, regrettable and horrendous though it is, I'm afraid I think it's correct.
I don't see how we can continue to stand by and watch Ukraine getting pulverised.
However, the only way this will happen is a split in NATO. Joe Biden gave Putin permission to invade Ukraine when he pulled the plug so disastrously on Afghanistan. He sent the clearest possible signal to Putin that he was an isolationist and a coward.
Russia launches a false-flag operation, saying the Ukraine used chemical weapons. China agrees. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. We do nothing. (Witness Syria - thanks Ed!) Russia takes over Ukraine, having destroyed the cities. We do nothing. Then there are more false-flag attacks against Moldova. Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes. we do nothing (Moldova are not in NATO)
Rinse and repeat. Goodness know how China will use this to their advantage.
As @MrEd has rightly pointed out, China very definitely does not want Russia to use tactical nukes. Because if they do, then nuclear proliferation in the Far East becomes inevitable, and that is not in China's interest. (And nor, of course, is the world becoming a smoking ruin.)
I think that's a good point.
However, what really worries me are chemical or biological weapons. The genie has come out of that bottle several times, and the West, let alone the world community, have done f-all about it.
There is a lot in the idea that we are going to have to fight, and the sooner the better. It is our fate, and whatever happens, happens. Because otherwise we are simply submitting to an aggressor, and giving up.
I've said this ever since Putin was mad enough to invade and, regrettable and horrendous though it is, I'm afraid I think it's correct.
I don't see how we can continue to stand by and watch Ukraine getting pulverised.
However, the only way this will happen is a split in NATO. Joe Biden gave Putin permission to invade Ukraine when he pulled the plug so disastrously on Afghanistan. He sent the clearest possible signal to Putin that he was an isolationist and a coward.
We aren't standing by. A huge volume of arms has gone to Ukraine. We are waging economic war against Russia with devastating effect. As Russia has large-scale KIA and MIA attrition of its forces, Ukraine keeps getting more fighters as people return home to fight and volunteers from around the world join up.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Historically those are not high casualty figures for a Russian/USSR war. Russian life is cheap.
I'd say it depends on the current nature of Russian society, and whether the competent armed forces have shrunk so much as seems to be the case that smaller losses will be crippling.
One worthwhile comparison is the Winter War, and there Russia lost afaics ~150k dead and ~180k wounded, from an invasion force that was in the 500k-700k ballpark. Of those, 60k are thought to have been wounded / bitten by General Frost. Russian population was 170m in 1939.
The Finnish nos were around 25k killed, and 45k wounded. From a population of less than 4m in 1939.
More modern wars - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia - have lower numbers.
The numbers are the approx. middle of the ranges quoted on Wiki, which seems adequate to make the point.
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I am centre-left and apparently my desire not to have the world blow up is being "scared of standing up to Putin".
[...]
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
I am also left of centre and I too don't want to see the world blown up.
However I am also a realist. You don't win wars by sanctions I'm afraid. This is self-satisfied backslapping by the west. In the long term, it will of course damage Russia. But it won't stop this war.
We are getting drawn in and this is the time for courage, to issue an ultimatum to Putin: ceasefire and enter talks in the next 48 hours or we impose a No Fly Zone.
I don't want it to become received wisdom that Johnson has been saved by the war. He could still be ditched before the GE. I don't think so but he might be. It depends on the polls. Plus he might not have been ditched in any case. Lying to parliament, breaking Covid laws, generally being corrupt, this clearly isn't enough for Tory MPs. It would have depended on the polls. Common thread - the polls.
It almost seems bad taste discussing our party politics in the current situation but here is an idle thought. If Ukraine situation is resolved in next 12 months then Johnson will decide to go rather than risk being ousted or losing the election having decided he has enough for his 3 volume memoirs?
I really don’t get the received wisdom here that he’s a busted flush. Absent anything new from the police, leading to a proper bollocking, I think he’s now safe from the party stuff and has an evens chance of winning the next election. I only think his chances of that are as low as evens because the police might yet scupper his hopes.
But something new from the police is highly likely and the publication of the actual, full Gray report is inevitable. Those predicting Johnson will stay seem to ignore these obvious threats. How bad they’ll be for Johnson, we don’t know, but they’re coming.
They will only be a threat if either: 1) 54 letters go in or 2) public opinion rages about the issue again.
"Priti Patel to allow 20,000 more Ukrainian refugees into the UK Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
p.s. the cracks in NATO are very obviously emerging ...
Sorry to HYUFD and those who would love it to be otherwise. Much of this lands at Biden's feet. European countries, especially those closest to the conflict, have a rather different perspective than Sleepy Joe.
Can I raise a somewhat more light-hearted question, totally O/t. A lurker here (you know who you are) and I went to an online talk on "eureka moments' yesterday, and one of the examples was Percy Shaw's 'invention' of cats-eyes for road safety. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that they appeared to be a British thing; other countries didn't use them.
I don't recall seeing them in Spain, someone else said they weren't used in France and someone else that at one stage in his life he'd tried to sell them in the US without success.
There are people here who've driven all over the world; are they used in other countries?
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
You might like to consider why Putin is escalating, he appears to have a policy to bring NATO into the conflict.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I am centre-left and apparently my desire not to have the world blow up is being "scared of standing up to Putin".
[...]
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
I am also left of centre and I too don't want to see the world blown up.
However I am also a realist. You don't win wars by sanctions I'm afraid. This is self-satisfied backslapping by the west. In the long term, it will of course damage Russia. But it won't stop this war.
We are getting drawn in and this is the time for courage, to issue an ultimatum to Putin: ceasefire and enter talks in the next 48 hours or we impose a No Fly Zone.
That requires taking out missile defences very close to Moscow 400km away from the border.
So much woolly headed thinking Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
.
In many ways this war has revealed the flaws of NATO. It only covers its members, which means that people like Putin can get away with whatever they like against non-NATO countries.
But it also reveals the NIMBYism of some NATO states. The US in particular. Joe Biden greenlit this invasion when he pulled the plug so disgracefully on Afghanistan: dumping on them. The catastrophe in that country hasn't registered in our news very much.
But I also more controversially now doubt anyway whether NATO would respond to an attack on one of its member states. Joe Biden has shown such a disinclination to stand up to Putin.
If we survive this then Europe as a whole will emerge stronger and more united, minus the UK of course which has now decided to put it itself nowhere on the world map.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I am centre-left and apparently my desire not to have the world blow up is being "scared of standing up to Putin".
[...]
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
I am also left of centre and I too don't want to see the world blown up.
However I am also a realist. You don't win wars by sanctions I'm afraid. This is self-satisfied backslapping by the west. In the long term, it will of course damage Russia. But it won't stop this war.
We are getting drawn in and this is the time for courage, to issue an ultimatum to Putin: ceasefire and enter talks in the next 48 hours or we impose a No Fly Zone.
That requires taking out missile defences very close to Moscow 400km away from the border.
Sadly a NFZ is not an option
Of course it's an option. It's just a dangerous one.
p.s. the cracks in NATO are very obviously emerging ...
Sorry to HYUFD and those who would love it to be otherwise. Much of this lands at Biden's feet. European countries, especially those closest to the conflict, have a rather different perspective than Sleepy Joe.
(And the UK has become even more isolated.)
A situation like this really does illustrate how absolutely empty-headed some people can be.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Historically those are not high casualty figures for a Russian/USSR war. Russian life is cheap.
I'd say it depends on the current nature of Russian society, and whether the competent armed forces have shrunk so much as seems to be the case that smaller losses will be crippling.
One worthwhile comparison is the Winter War, and there Russia lost afaics ~150k dead and ~180k wounded, from an invasion force that was in the 500k-700k ballpark. Of those, 60k are thought to have been wounded / bitten by General Frost. Russian population was 170m in 1939.
The Finnish nos were around 25k killed, and 45k wounded. From a population of less than 4m in 1939.
More modern wars - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia - have lower numbers, although % of pop is as high or higher.
The numbers are the approx. middle of the ranges quoted on Wiki, which seems adequate to make the point.
Adds: Population numbers at the point of the way are Chechnya 1-2m, Afghanistan 13m in 1979, Georgia 3-4m.
The obvious differences in Ukraine are the length of the war (so far), Ukr having more like 25-30% of the population of Russia (as opposed to 1-10%), and the quality of the Ukr Armed Forces.
"Priti Patel to allow 20,000 more Ukrainian refugees into the UK Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
p.s. the cracks in NATO are very obviously emerging ...
Sorry to HYUFD and those who would love it to be otherwise. Much of this lands at Biden's feet. European countries, especially those closest to the conflict, have a rather different perspective than Sleepy Joe.
(And the UK has become even more isolated.)
A situation like this really does illustrate how absolutely empty-headed some people can be.
It may but this forum is at its best when people don't go Ad Hominem and descend into personal insults. I wouldn't describe anyone as 'empty-headed' which is just rude and a failure to play the ball.
I'm afraid considered and reasoned debate on here is all too rare at the moment. Which is why I'm not frequenting it much.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
And how did they view the Ukraine war?
Mornin' all! Brighter here, too..
To save you the bother of reading the thread: loads of extreme pro-Putin propaganda, lots of it from official Chinese sources.
State Away, you need more courage. I think I understand your perspectives by now but you need, if I may say, to be more of a realist about the world.
This is a grim time but I'm reminded of JRR Tolkien's words:
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Have as good and as non-insulting a day as you can, everyone.
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
Yes. Look at our own position. We started the run down of our armed forces in the early 80s and really accelerated it hard over the last 15 - 20 years. Our troops are notoriously badly equipped and badly paid and we have had to explore stupidity like pooling naval resources with France to provide our new carriers with escorts.
On top of that we have allowed Russian money and influence to undermine our politics and society. We're weak and divided and astonishingly still have a PM and ministers helping their Russian friends. And that's just us - similar problems elsewhere in NATO (and lets not even go into the American disaster) - Putin has spent a decade and more undermining us and knows we are at our weakest.
Which is why we need to get Russian money out of our politics. And why we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.
I'm staying off this forum as it's too needlessly argumentative and angry, and even the right-wingers seem too scared of standing up to Putin.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
I am centre-left and apparently my desire not to have the world blow up is being "scared of standing up to Putin".
[...]
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
I am also left of centre and I too don't want to see the world blown up.
However I am also a realist. You don't win wars by sanctions I'm afraid. This is self-satisfied backslapping by the west. In the long term, it will of course damage Russia. But it won't stop this war.
We are getting drawn in and this is the time for courage, to issue an ultimatum to Putin: ceasefire and enter talks in the next 48 hours or we impose a No Fly Zone.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
And how did they view the Ukraine war?
Mornin' all! Brighter here, too..
To save you the bother of reading the thread: loads of extreme pro-Putin propaganda, lots of it from official Chinese sources.
I did have a flick through but thought there must be more somewhere.
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
You might like to consider why Putin is escalating, he appears to have a policy to bring NATO into the conflict.
Does he? I see the opposite. He's showing willingness to escalate in order to keep NATO out of the conflict.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Super valuable input, quoting a children’s book when deciding whether to directly attack a nuclear power.
So much woolly headed thinking Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
.
In many ways this war has revealed the flaws of NATO. It only covers its members, which means that people like Putin can get away with whatever they like against non-NATO countries.
But it also reveals the NIMBYism of some NATO states. The US in particular. Joe Biden greenlit this invasion when he pulled the plug so disgracefully on Afghanistan: dumping on them. The catastrophe in that country hasn't registered in our news very much.
But I also more controversially now doubt anyway whether NATO would respond to an attack on one of its member states. Joe Biden has shown such a disinclination to stand up to Putin.
If we survive this then Europe as a whole will emerge stronger and more united, minus the UK of course which has now decided to put it itself nowhere on the world map.
"nowhere on the world map" is certainly you inviting ad hominem attacks....
WRT cracks in NATO, this is nothing new. So many WWIII scenarios - when we started with Warsaw Pact forces invading western Europe as opposed to straight to nukes - have rows between the NATO countries being monstered by the red army and those not yet invaded.
However, when NATO forces are all fighting together in theatre the connection between them is physical. So far in the Ukraine - Russia war NATO is not a combatant, so of course there is more room for debate and disagreement. That so many NATO members are also EU members which is also reacting and the UK is fighting its own cultural war against the EU doesn't help seed unity - cf the petulant positioning between British and French governments.
Should Russia show any likelihood of invading a NATO member I think all of this debate will boil away very quickly, and "sleepy Joe" will speak with his measured authority on what NATO is prepared to do. Which is why Putin - in my opinion - won't do it.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
And how did they view the Ukraine war?
Mornin' all! Brighter here, too..
To save you the bother of reading the thread: loads of extreme pro-Putin propaganda, lots of it from official Chinese sources.
I did have a flick through but thought there must be more somewhere.
I was hoping for a twist, but didn't find one unfortunately. But I was surprised at how shamelessly pro-Putin some of the apparently official Chinese sources are - no sign of any sitting on the fence.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Historically those are not high casualty figures for a Russian/USSR war. Russian life is cheap.
I'd say it depends on the current nature of Russian society, and whether the competent armed forces have shrunk so much as seems to be the case that smaller losses will be crippling.
One worthwhile comparison is the Winter War, and there Russia lost afaics ~150k dead and ~180k wounded, from an invasion force that was in the 500k-700k ballpark. Of those, 60k are thought to have been wounded / bitten by General Frost. Russian population was 170m in 1939.
The Finnish nos were around 25k killed, and 45k wounded. From a population of less than 4m in 1939.
More modern wars - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia - have lower numbers.
The numbers are the approx. middle of the ranges quoted on Wiki, which seems adequate to make the point.
The possible difference here is the size of the usable army. Putin has quite limited numbers of non-conscripts - which means he will need to break his promise (ha) about not using conscripts quite soon.
*If* the reported rates of casualties are true, then some Russian units must have already rendered ineffective in combat - a common guesstimate of such thing is about 20-30% casualties.
IN the case of the Winter War, Stalin had essentially infinite reserves to rotate through - the Soviet army couldn't sustain more than the numbers above on the Finnish Front, but they could bring in replacements.
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
Yes. Look at our own position. We started the run down of our armed forces in the early 80s and really accelerated it hard over the last 15 - 20 years. Our troops are notoriously badly equipped and badly paid and we have had to explore stupidity like pooling naval resources with France to provide our new carriers with escorts.
On top of that we have allowed Russian money and influence to undermine our politics and society. We're weak and divided and astonishingly still have a PM and ministers helping their Russian friends. And that's just us - similar problems elsewhere in NATO (and lets not even go into the American disaster) - Putin has spent a decade and more undermining us and knows we are at our weakest.
Which is why we need to get Russian money out of our politics. And why we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.
Spending went up during the first half of the eighties after a broadly downwards trajectory since the sixties (at least: that’s where the graph starts). It was the nineties where spending fell off a cliff.
"Priti Patel to allow 20,000 more Ukrainian refugees into the UK Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
Rather than announcing imaginary future high numbers just sort out the few hundred/thousand trying to get in now.
Is this on top of the 200k announced so far? Or a bypass to the obstacle course?
There is no 200k. What she seems to be suggesting is that they will stop behaving like inhuman tyrants and start letting refugees in to shelter with families and fellow nationals already here. Like every decent country did last week.
State Away, you need more courage. I think I understand your perspectives by now but you need, if I may say, to be more of a realist about the world.
This is a grim time but I'm reminded of JRR Tolkien's words:
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Have as good and as non-insulting a day as you can, everyone.
Need to be more realist about the world... appeals to Gandalf.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
The Russian manpower losses then are in a fortnight equal to their decade long Afghan war.
Sure, Russia does have a history of sustaining vast losses and keeping fighting, but that was in a defensive rather than offensive war. Perhaps a better parallel is the current Ukranian situation.
More to the point is the massive losses of skills and heavy weapons, again more important in an offensive war. Ukranian militias raiding supply convoys are relatively autonomous and low tech, but Russia needs an integrated combined arms approach to break what appears to be a mobile Ukranian defence in depth. Their capacity for that declines by the day in the face of Ukranian resistance.
It is going to be tough on Ukranian civilians, but the resort to artillery on cities shows that declining Russian ability. I don't think Russia can sustain this war beyond Easter, though turfing them out of the Black Sea coast may be difficult.
If the injury reports are even half correct, has anyone considered what will happen to Putin's internal propaganda when the young Russian soldiers either come back wounded (or not at all)? When vast numbers come back and tell the story of what they saw and who they fought... Remember that numbers of them seem happier to surrender than fight.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Russian soldiers rteturning from war will be censored in the Russian media like everything else. That's even if they disobey their commanders and break army secrecy rules.
Bit difficult to censor lost limbs, or hands with blackened stumps of fingers through frostbite...
You can prevent news of it appearing in the media which is where 99% of people get their information from.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
So I presume you supported military intervention in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Syra, in northern Nigeria, in Chechnya, in Yemen too, conflicts which were often just as brutal as Ukraine if not worse with terrible atrocities and where we did nothing militarily in most of them?
Your comment 'the species is unimportant' is so ludicrous as to be barely worthy of comment, however going to war with Russia over Ukraine if it leads to WW3, nuclear war and the death of hundreds of millions or even billions rather than the thousands so far in Ukraine would not have been worth doing on any definition.
Yes in a few billion years time the Sun may explode but by then we may be living on a different planet or even a different galaxy anyway, however that is no excuse for a possible third world war or even nuclear war which is still avoidable
The upside to the Earth being engulfed in the fiery nuclear plasma of the Sun is that the place that elected you, and all its people, will be completely ionised and lost in heaving sea of fire. There's always a positive.
Though as a Christian I also believe in eternal life anyway, hopefully far away from you.
Given that comment I would not be certain you will escape the eternal fiery furnace even in the afterlife!
As fiery chat up lines go, you two are breaking new ground. Get a room! :-)
Also it is a, in some interpretations mortal, sin to say that someone else is damned.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
And how did they view the Ukraine war?
Mornin' all! Brighter here, too..
To save you the bother of reading the thread: loads of extreme pro-Putin propaganda, lots of it from official Chinese sources.
Puts some context on the misguided suggestions that China might be a useful broker in this conflict.
"Priti Patel to allow 20,000 more Ukrainian refugees into the UK Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
Rather than announcing imaginary future high numbers just sort out the few hundred/thousand trying to get in now.
Is this on top of the 200k announced so far? Or a bypass to the obstacle course?
There is no 200k. What she seems to be suggesting is that they will stop behaving like inhuman tyrants and start letting refugees in to shelter with families and fellow nationals already here. Like every decent country did last week.
Johnson picked a big sounding number out of thin air yesterday, as the best answer to the question in front of him. Describing this as an "announcement" is probably an over-statement; I doubt there is anything more behind this than is usual with his ad libs?
WRT cracks in NATO, this is nothing new. So many WWIII scenarios - when we started with Warsaw Pact forces invading western Europe as opposed to straight to nukes - have rows between the NATO countries being monstered by the red army and those not yet invaded.
However, when NATO forces are all fighting together in theatre the connection between them is physical. So far in the Ukraine - Russia war NATO is not a combatant, so of course there is more room for debate and disagreement. That so many NATO members are also EU members which is also reacting and the UK is fighting its own cultural war against the EU doesn't help seed unity - cf the petulant positioning between British and French governments.
Should Russia show any likelihood of invading a NATO member I think all of this debate will boil away very quickly, and "sleepy Joe" will speak with his measured authority on what NATO is prepared to do. Which is why Putin - in my opinion - won't do it.
I have always been first, middle and last to take the micky out of Biden. But since the invasion actually occurred, he and his team have been measured, sober and responsible. Super cool response to Putin’s nuclear willy waving in particular.
Every action taken by the West in this should be aimed at consolidating global public opinion against Putin and creating the space for those countries either economically or diplomatically dependent upon him to turn against him.
Bombing air bases outside Moscow? Good one Heathener.
So much woolly headed thinking via false analogy on this thread.
“Stand up to bullies”. “You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”. “Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
Yes. Look at our own position. We started the run down of our armed forces in the early 80s and really accelerated it hard over the last 15 - 20 years. Our troops are notoriously badly equipped and badly paid and we have had to explore stupidity like pooling naval resources with France to provide our new carriers with escorts.
On top of that we have allowed Russian money and influence to undermine our politics and society. We're weak and divided and astonishingly still have a PM and ministers helping their Russian friends. And that's just us - similar problems elsewhere in NATO (and lets not even go into the American disaster) - Putin has spent a decade and more undermining us and knows we are at our weakest.
Which is why we need to get Russian money out of our politics. And why we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.
Spending went up during the first half of the eighties after a broadly downwards trajectory since the sixties (at least: that’s where the graph starts). It was the nineties where spending fell off a cliff.
I was going to link to that. Sadly, RP sometimes falls into the 1979-year-zero trap.
Comments
Is ANY chance of nuclear war too much to save Ukarine?
Or is there a small enough chance, that you can realistically evaluate and attach to real world events, where you'd save Ukraine?
If not Ukraine is already dead to you. Whatever crap you choose to say for them.
Are you really for them or not?
There have been genocides across centuries of human history and plenty of animals kill each other as much as humans do.
We cannot realistically get involved militarily in every conflict that takes place in any one corner of the globe at any one time.
We are certainly not getting involved in a conflict involving a military superpower and a non NATO nation
If they want to defend their country they will have to do it themselves or come to an agreement with Russia not to join NATO
https://twitter.com/anadoluimages/status/1501624497362907137
To buy your temporary sanctuary.
I hope you don't get away from the wolf.
"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."
Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.
Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦
@IAPonomarenko
This is what they do to marauders in Dnipro
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1501659071132442633
I want everyone to live.
Including the Ukrainians.
For example, Johnny Cash used it from time to time, to represent his roots and as part of American heritage. No way HE was a Nazi, that'[s for damn sure.
True enough that Southern Cross DOES have racist origin, and has been overtly flaunted by racists. Yet that is NOT universal, or even the majority. Though nowadays, most of those who saw it as representing their personal heritage, have indeed given it up, at least in public.
And in Georgia & Mississippi these folks were instrumental in having the Confederate removed from the state flags.
Putin would be safer wiping his own army out if he cannot guarantee victory and I do not see how he can.
Home Secretary set to extend criteria for displaced people following backlash over chaotic handling of visa applications"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/09/priti-patel-allow-20000-ukrainian-refugees-uk/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60670173
I think in a week or so Russian will take the Black Sea coast and strategic cities to encircle Ukrainian troops in Eastern Ukraine. Lots of people will say Russia will now win. But this will be a mirage because they will not be able to hold cities long term. And given the non-compliance of the populace, that means 10,000+ troops in every place of 200k. It isn't possible, and the Russian economic crisis will be getting worse week by week.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taf8t1/russian_soldiers_in_ukraine_call_their_close_ones/
Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.
https://twitter.com/presssec/status/1501676230617321480?s=21
Russia can't use biological or chemical weapons because it is a party to the treaties (BWC, CWC) which bans their production, stockpiling, transfer or use, and so does not have any of either weapons type. You can use what you don't have ....
Not sure if this has been discussed. I'm amazed at what people are doing.
Last week I was invited into a WeChat group mainly for Chinese migrants living in Australia, giving me a unique look at how they view the Ukraine war. The group logo has a Chinese national flag, so unsurprisingly their views are very pro-China, pro- Communist Party.
The 1200 confirmed civilian deaths reported in Mariupol is clearly an underestimate, and things will get rapidly worse for the 300k trapped there as supplies and water run out.
https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1501627882925342723
Today, I attended an emergency online conference of 🇺🇦 mayors from Mariupol, Kharkiv, Trostianets (Sumy region), Merefa (Kharkiv region), and Zhytomyr organized by the Ministry for Regional Development. What the mayors reported raises alarms on many different levels. A small 🧵
Russia launches a false-flag operation, saying the Ukraine used chemical weapons. China agrees.
Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes.
We do nothing. (Witness Syria - thanks Ed!)
Russia takes over Ukraine, having destroyed the cities.
We do nothing.
Then there are more false-flag attacks against Moldova.
Russia responds with either chemical weapons or tactical nukes.
we do nothing (Moldova are not in NATO)
Rinse and repeat. Goodness know how China will use this to their advantage.
1. It seems US intelligence when it comes to the casualty rates may have been behind the curve for whatever reasons. Chances are it gets revised up sharply again to get closer to European estimates;
2. While Ukrainian losses will also be high (although they are defending in many cases), Ukraine also is getting fresh “reserves”, not only via the call up / returnees but also foreign soldiers coming in (many of whom would have fighting experience). Chances are the Ukrainian forces’ coherence is, net-net, close to where it was at the start;
3. Related to 2, Ukraine has been capturing material which, in effect, is not only replacing its losses but is an effective upgrade on what they had. So nearly all their tank losses have been T-64s and they are capturing significant amounts of T-72s, T-80s etc
Mornin' all! Brighter here, too..
Mr. Chris, Crassus was seeking to avenge his son, and was fighting against another great power. Putin was attempting to bully/destroy a much smaller country for precise reasons that remain elusive.
“From today, the business card of every employee of the Russian embassy will be decorated with a note honouring Ukraine’s fighting, and everyone will have to think about the atrocities of the Russian regime against the peaceful Ukrainian nation when writing this street name,” Vilnius mayor Remigijus Simasius claimed in a statement.
Until now, the Russian embassy has taken its address from nearby Latvian Street, whose name remains unchanged.
But a hitherto nameless smaller road leading straight to the embassy acquired the Ukrainian moniker.
However just to gently correct Mike, no one can be said to be having a 'good war' except Zelensky and the brave Ukrainians. I don't mean that simply on a moral level but on a political one.
It's clear that there are going to be no winners from this. Putin is not going to be retreating anytime soon but that doesn't mean he is going to push through the rest of Ukraine in a hurry either. People die all over the country, including children and there is a refugee crisis that the UK is failing to meet.
Political gain isn't the focus but in circumstances like this it's good to step back and apply sound historic judgement.
There are no winners from this politically. We are relatively powerless to stop Putin whatever you might like to tell yourself. People are not feeling happier about it. The result?
Ultimately our impotence will bite Johnson and the mid to long term result will be further erosion in tory support.
Basically people don't like feeling unhappy. They take it out on the governing party.
There are two intertwined but separate issues: the inhumanity and incompetence of this corrupt lying government, and the war. You can oppose the former's actions whilst being broadly supportive of the NATO/EU response. The latter point is not partisan.
We are standing up to Putin. But not at any price.
I don't see how we can continue to stand by and watch Ukraine getting pulverised.
However, the only way this will happen is a split in NATO. Joe Biden gave Putin permission to invade Ukraine when he pulled the plug so disastrously on Afghanistan. He sent the clearest possible signal to Putin that he was an isolationist and a coward.
However, what really worries me are chemical or biological weapons. The genie has come out of that bottle several times, and the West, let alone the world community, have done f-all about it.
I'd say it depends on the current nature of Russian society, and whether the competent armed forces have shrunk so much as seems to be the case that smaller losses will be crippling.
One worthwhile comparison is the Winter War, and there Russia lost afaics ~150k dead and ~180k wounded, from an invasion force that was in the 500k-700k ballpark. Of those, 60k are thought to have been wounded / bitten by General Frost. Russian population was 170m in 1939.
The Finnish nos were around 25k killed, and 45k wounded. From a population of less than 4m in 1939.
More modern wars - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia - have lower numbers.
The numbers are the approx. middle of the ranges quoted on Wiki, which seems adequate to make the point.
“Stand up to bullies”.
“You don’t deserve freedom if you won’t fight for it”.
“Ukraine is Czechoslovakia” etc…
As for the whole debate about murdering Putin’s / his associates’ children and imagining the consequence would be a group of chastised fathers retiring peacefully with their family albums…
I don’t often say this but you should all read what HYFUD is saying. Reflect carefully on his short, clear sentences about the lines of NATO.
What we are witnessing is the degree of powerlessness against a nuclear state once it sets its course on military action. Much of the world is doing what it can through military aid, giving refuge to civilians, corporate behaviour and direct sanctions. And it might work eventually. But it might not and Ukraine could easily be turned from a modern state into a failed one.
There were many world powers including Russia that were very upset when the US invaded Iraq. Infrastructure got destroyed, too many children were victims. But fortunately you didn’t see attempts by other nuclear states to fight the US directly in that conflict. They knew to do so was not only futile but too dangerous. Plenty of monkey business through proxies for sure but nothing that risked direct conflict and escalation.
The hard truth is that likely the only way to save the children of Mariupol is to stop the invasion from happening in the first place. Because the ex ante stakes have been raised sufficiently high that Putin does not dare. That is what NATO is for.
Sadly for the children of Mariupol, most of the western world only woke up to the need for a well funded defence budget and coherent and coordinated foreign policy AFTER the invasion. I suspect those railing against their own powerlessness know this is true of themselves if they are honest about it.
However I am also a realist. You don't win wars by sanctions I'm afraid. This is self-satisfied backslapping by the west. In the long term, it will of course damage Russia. But it won't stop this war.
We are getting drawn in and this is the time for courage, to issue an ultimatum to Putin: ceasefire and enter talks in the next 48 hours or we impose a No Fly Zone.
IMO neither is likely.
Sorry to HYUFD and those who would love it to be otherwise. Much of this lands at Biden's feet. European countries, especially those closest to the conflict, have a rather different perspective than Sleepy Joe.
(And the UK has become even more isolated.)
I don't recall seeing them in Spain, someone else said they weren't used in France and someone else that at one stage in his life he'd tried to sell them in the US without success.
There are people here who've driven all over the world; are they used in other countries?
Sadly a NFZ is not an option
But it also reveals the NIMBYism of some NATO states. The US in particular. Joe Biden greenlit this invasion when he pulled the plug so disgracefully on Afghanistan: dumping on them. The catastrophe in that country hasn't registered in our news very much.
But I also more controversially now doubt anyway whether NATO would respond to an attack on one of its member states. Joe Biden has shown such a disinclination to stand up to Putin.
If we survive this then Europe as a whole will emerge stronger and more united, minus the UK of course which has now decided to put it itself nowhere on the world map.
The obvious differences in Ukraine are the length of the war (so far), Ukr having more like 25-30% of the population of Russia (as opposed to 1-10%), and the quality of the Ukr Armed Forces.
I'm afraid considered and reasoned debate on here is all too rare at the moment. Which is why I'm not frequenting it much.
- The Russian belief that Sweden and Finland are really NATO adjuncts,
- Your proximity to Kaliningrad
- The laws of physics
You will be evaporating 15 minutes *before* us, I reckon.
Get the chairs out, and get the tea on, when you arrive, there's a good chap.
loads of extreme pro-Putin propaganda, lots of it from official Chinese sources.
This is a grim time but I'm reminded of JRR Tolkien's words:
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Have as good and as non-insulting a day as you can, everyone.
On top of that we have allowed Russian money and influence to undermine our politics and society. We're weak and divided and astonishingly still have a PM and ministers helping their Russian friends. And that's just us - similar problems elsewhere in NATO (and lets not even go into the American disaster) - Putin has spent a decade and more undermining us and knows we are at our weakest.
Which is why we need to get Russian money out of our politics. And why we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
However, when NATO forces are all fighting together in theatre the connection between them is physical. So far in the Ukraine - Russia war NATO is not a combatant, so of course there is more room for debate and disagreement. That so many NATO members are also EU members which is also reacting and the UK is fighting its own cultural war against the EU doesn't help seed unity - cf the petulant positioning between British and French governments.
Should Russia show any likelihood of invading a NATO member I think all of this debate will boil away very quickly, and "sleepy Joe" will speak with his measured authority on what NATO is prepared to do. Which is why Putin - in my opinion - won't do it.
*If* the reported rates of casualties are true, then some Russian units must have already rendered ineffective in combat - a common guesstimate of such thing is about 20-30% casualties.
IN the case of the Winter War, Stalin had essentially infinite reserves to rotate through - the Soviet army couldn't sustain more than the numbers above on the Finnish Front, but they could bring in replacements.
Spending went up during the first half of the eighties after a broadly downwards trajectory since the sixties (at least: that’s where the graph starts). It was the nineties where spending fell off a cliff.
Sure, Russia does have a history of sustaining vast losses and keeping fighting, but that was in a defensive rather than offensive war. Perhaps a better parallel is the current Ukranian situation.
More to the point is the massive losses of skills and heavy weapons, again more important in an offensive war. Ukranian militias raiding supply convoys are relatively autonomous and low tech, but Russia needs an integrated combined arms approach to break what appears to be a mobile Ukranian defence in depth. Their capacity for that declines by the day in the face of Ukranian resistance.
It is going to be tough on Ukranian civilians, but the resort to artillery on cities shows that declining Russian ability. I don't think Russia can sustain this war beyond Easter, though turfing them out of the Black Sea coast may be difficult.
Every action taken by the West in this should be aimed at consolidating global public opinion against Putin and creating the space for those countries either economically or diplomatically dependent upon him to turn against him.
Bombing air bases outside Moscow? Good one Heathener.
(I thought we agreed to call it Königsberg?)