Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Almost halfway through March and still no CON poll lead – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,802
edited March 2022 in General
imageAlmost halfway through March and still no CON poll lead – politicalbetting.com

One of the more interesting bets that will see an outcome this month is the above from Smarkets on whether the Tories are are going to get a poll lead in March.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options

    President Duda of Poland tells his people

    "If you feel the need to help Ukrainians in their fight, go"

    https://wpolityce.pl/polityka/589776-top-5-z-wywiadu-prezydenta-dudy-dla-tygodnika-sieci

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    There are laws which forbid fighting in foreign units. But the situation is unique.

    Our neighbour is defending his sovereignty. We know what that’s like, we understand it.

    As President (…) I can say:

    If you feel in your hearts the need to help Ukrainians in their fight, go!
    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503505096755363841
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Only biggest priorities matter?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    I was thinking this had been the longest period without Boris/Johnson/Boris Johnson/PM/PM Johnson/PM Boris Johnson/FLSOJ speaking to Zelensky, but I see they chatted again yesterday. If they become any friendlier Boris will be offering him a seat in the Lords in no time.

    What seems random is when multiple leaders are on the same call.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    edited March 2022
    Apparently Lithuania had its independence day recently. If Ukraine has to accept enforced neutrality as a way out of this war, will they need to commemorate a reverse independence day every year?
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    edited March 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,146
    edited March 2022
    kle4 said:

    I was thinking this had been the longest period without Boris/Johnson/Boris Johnson/PM/PM Johnson/PM Boris Johnson/FLSOJ speaking to Zelensky, but I see they chatted again yesterday. If they become any friendlier Boris will be offering him a seat in the Lords in no time.

    What seems random is when multiple leaders are on the same call.

    The UK-Polish-Ukrainian calls make sense from a logistical and alliance PoV. I also suspects it saves Z a significant amount of time.

    I found this article amusing: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-ben-wallace-fought-securocrats-to-donate-uks-tank-busting-weapons-to-ukraine-zz05m28g2?shareToken=b76b9cb573b66f9c15259e9f958511f3

    Not only does it reinforce how well Wallace has done, but Zelenskyy can clearly read Johnson like a book:

    While British commanders call the NLAWs “en-laws” the Ukrainians pronounce the word “en-love”, a factor that has given rise to light-hearted exchanges between Johnson and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    Two weeks ago, the Ukrainian leader serenaded Johnson with the song When You’re Young and N-Love and then a bastardised Beatles rendition of All You Need Is N-Love. Last week Zelensky told Johnson, in one of their daily phone calls, that Ukrainian soldiers shout “God Save the Queen” when they fire the weapon.

    The deployment of the weapons has been important for the prime minister since he has also had several conversations with Zelensky, including a “long, agonised one” on Wednesday evening, about why Britain cannot back a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Defence chiefs believe the move would be either largely ineffective or liable to draw the armed forces into direct conflict with the Russians.

    Instead Johnson has privately vowed to do as much as possible short of a no-fly zone. “We must strengthen your position as much as we can,” he told Zelensky last week. The UK has also sent body armour and laser range sighting equipment, in addition to the plans for Starstreak, which will deter Russian aircraft from flying at night.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Lithuania had its independence day recently. If Ukraine has to accept enforced neutrality as a way out of this war, will they need to commemorate a reverse independence day every year?

    Just like the old days of the Roman Empire. Maybe they can also send tribute.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    Given the Tories were 10%+ behind just 2 months ago, even cutting the Labour lead to just 2 to 3% is significant. Regardless of whether the Tories regain an actual poll lead or not
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    edited March 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    It contains agreement to share nuclear powered submarines and intelligence sharing. A clear move towards a defence alliance and a NATO of the Southern hemisphere even if Australia is only the first nation so far included
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    Chameleon said:

    kle4 said:

    I was thinking this had been the longest period without Boris/Johnson/Boris Johnson/PM/PM Johnson/PM Boris Johnson/FLSOJ speaking to Zelensky, but I see they chatted again yesterday. If they become any friendlier Boris will be offering him a seat in the Lords in no time.

    What seems random is when multiple leaders are on the same call.

    The UK-Polish-Ukrainian calls make sense from a logistical and alliance PoV. I also suspects it saves Z a significant amount of time.

    I found this article amusing: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-ben-wallace-fought-securocrats-to-donate-uks-tank-busting-weapons-to-ukraine-zz05m28g2?shareToken=b76b9cb573b66f9c15259e9f958511f3

    Not only does it reinforce how well Wallace has done, but Zelenskyy can clearly read Johnson like a book:

    While British commanders call the NLAWs “en-laws” the Ukrainians pronounce the word “en-love”, a factor that has given rise to light-hearted exchanges between Johnson and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    Two weeks ago, the Ukrainian leader serenaded Johnson with the song When You’re Young and N-Love and then a bastardised Beatles rendition of All You Need Is N-Love. Last week Zelensky told Johnson, in one of their daily phone calls, that Ukrainian soldiers shout “God Save the Queen” when they fire the weapon.

    The deployment of the weapons has been important for the prime minister since he has also had several conversations with Zelensky, including a “long, agonised one” on Wednesday evening, about why Britain cannot back a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Defence chiefs believe the move would be either largely ineffective or liable to draw the armed forces into direct conflict with the Russians.

    Instead Johnson has privately vowed to do as much as possible short of a no-fly zone. “We must strengthen your position as much as we can,” he told Zelensky last week. The UK has also sent body armour and laser range sighting equipment, in addition to the plans for Starstreak, which will deter Russian aircraft from flying at night.
    I assume the useful intelligence is filtering in through other channels military to military, but it is interesting to consider what is being said at these things. Zelensky and Johnson have spoken on 6 March, 9 March, 10 March and 13 March according to Zelensky's twitter feed.

    Of course, he's speaking to everyone he can, and multiple conversations with several of them, but that is pretty frequent.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Well, that presumes that the Russians have the resources to throw at Ukraine, and it just requires that it is logistics that is the crunch point.

    It is far from clear - given the losses sustained so far - that the Russian problems are merely the difficulty of getting fuel, food, armor and ammunition to the frontline. It is entirely possible, given how quickly offensive operations chew through equipment and ammo, that they are beginning to run short.

    And it is certainly the case that Russia is expending its capital and soldiers at a far greater than replacement rate. What we don't know is (a) how long this can continue for (i.e. the reserves Russia has), and (b) how long the Ukrainians can continue fighting.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Three months and 8 days since the last Tory poll lead. Just sayin'!
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Five Powers was not intended and is not intended as a China containment pact.

    Indeed Singapore and Malaysia would not wish to be part of something perceived as containing China; Singapore especially prizes it’s independence as the regions leading entrepôt (especially with HK in decline).

    It’s more joint training and perhaps some tech sharing.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    edited March 2022
    kle4 said:

    Chameleon said:

    kle4 said:

    I was thinking this had been the longest period without Boris/Johnson/Boris Johnson/PM/PM Johnson/PM Boris Johnson/FLSOJ speaking to Zelensky, but I see they chatted again yesterday. If they become any friendlier Boris will be offering him a seat in the Lords in no time.

    What seems random is when multiple leaders are on the same call.

    The UK-Polish-Ukrainian calls make sense from a logistical and alliance PoV. I also suspects it saves Z a significant amount of time.

    I found this article amusing: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-ben-wallace-fought-securocrats-to-donate-uks-tank-busting-weapons-to-ukraine-zz05m28g2?shareToken=b76b9cb573b66f9c15259e9f958511f3

    Not only does it reinforce how well Wallace has done, but Zelenskyy can clearly read Johnson like a book:

    While British commanders call the NLAWs “en-laws” the Ukrainians pronounce the word “en-love”, a factor that has given rise to light-hearted exchanges between Johnson and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    Two weeks ago, the Ukrainian leader serenaded Johnson with the song When You’re Young and N-Love and then a bastardised Beatles rendition of All You Need Is N-Love. Last week Zelensky told Johnson, in one of their daily phone calls, that Ukrainian soldiers shout “God Save the Queen” when they fire the weapon.

    The deployment of the weapons has been important for the prime minister since he has also had several conversations with Zelensky, including a “long, agonised one” on Wednesday evening, about why Britain cannot back a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Defence chiefs believe the move would be either largely ineffective or liable to draw the armed forces into direct conflict with the Russians.

    Instead Johnson has privately vowed to do as much as possible short of a no-fly zone. “We must strengthen your position as much as we can,” he told Zelensky last week. The UK has also sent body armour and laser range sighting equipment, in addition to the plans for Starstreak, which will deter Russian aircraft from flying at night.
    I assume the useful intelligence is filtering in through other channels military to military, but it is interesting to consider what is being said at these things. Zelensky and Johnson have spoken on 6 March, 9 March, 10 March and 13 March according to Zelensky's twitter feed.

    Of course, he's speaking to everyone he can, and multiple conversations with several of them, but that is pretty frequent.
    Wordle competition.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Well, that presumes that the Russians have the resources to throw at Ukraine, and it just requires that it is logistics that is the crunch point.

    It is far from clear - given the losses sustained so far - that the Russian problems are merely the difficulty of getting fuel, food, armor and ammunition to the frontline. It is entirely possible, given how quickly offensive operations chew through equipment and ammo, that they are beginning to run short.

    And it is certainly the case that Russia is expending its capital and soldiers at a far greater than replacement rate. What we don't know is (a) how long this can continue for (i.e. the reserves Russia has), and (b) how long the Ukrainians can continue fighting.
    Russia is going to take Kyiv, Odessa and most of Ukraine. At that point everyone will say they have won and we all got it wrong. Then the long guerilla campaign will slowly ruin them.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    India is frankly too pro-Putin for that right now!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    It contains agreement to share nuclear powered submarines and intelligence sharing. A clear move towards a defence alliance and a NATO of the Southern hemisphere even if Australia is only the first nation so far included
    Nevertheless, it is not a defensive alliance. And I'm not even sure it is a "clear move" towards one, given the existing ANZUS defence treaty between the US, Australia and New Zealand.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    On topic, looking at the polls, it feels mathematically more than likely for there to be a Tory polling lead in the next few weeks. A meaningless one, but a lead.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Well, that presumes that the Russians have the resources to throw at Ukraine, and it just requires that it is logistics that is the crunch point.

    It is far from clear - given the losses sustained so far - that the Russian problems are merely the difficulty of getting fuel, food, armor and ammunition to the frontline. It is entirely possible, given how quickly offensive operations chew through equipment and ammo, that they are beginning to run short.

    And it is certainly the case that Russia is expending its capital and soldiers at a far greater than replacement rate. What we don't know is (a) how long this can continue for (i.e. the reserves Russia has), and (b) how long the Ukrainians can continue fighting.
    "We shall fight on to the end, so long as there are sufficient Churchill quotes".
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    India is frankly too pro-Putin for that right now!
    India is neutral on Russia as it was neutral in the Cold War.

    China however concerns it far more due to territorial disputes
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
  • Options

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Liked by people that post them constantly, ironic.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008

    A bit of personal news

    My son had his first experience at the helm of the all weather Shannon class lifeboat tonight in an exercise

    Congrats?!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,359
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Face time with a member of the US Senate without dropping at least 10k into party coffers? You must be dreaming.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    We will see, if China invades Taiwan in the next few months having used Russia's invasion of Ukraine as cover that would not be the case
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    You are a Kiwi and I have travelled extensively in Aus - NZ - Japan etc but @HYUFD is the expert on the subject ?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    edited March 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    We will see, if China invades Taiwan in the next few months having used Russia's invasion of Ukraine as cover that would not be the case
    Yes, also if my aunty grows balls in the next few months I will perhaps call her uncle. Assuming she wishes that to be the case.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,149
    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145

    A bit of personal news

    My son had his first experience at the helm of the all weather Shannon class lifeboat tonight in an exercise

    Awesome news.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    You are a Kiwi and I have travelled extensively in Aus - NZ - Japan etc but @HYUFD is the expert on the subject ?
    To be fair, my tutor (in the 90s) on East Asian IR was outed by the FT a few years ago as a Chinese agent of influence, so it’s possible all my reading is junk.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    edited March 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    You are a Kiwi and I have travelled extensively in Aus - NZ - Japan etc but @HYUFD is the expert on the subject ?
    To be fair, my tutor (in the 90s) on East Asian IR was outed by the FT a few years ago as a Chinese agent of influence, so it’s possible all my reading is junk.
    Or you have the perfect background….
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    You don't think that the performance of Russian vs Western weapons in the Ukraine might have just given the Chinese government a little bit of pause?

    Taiwan, in comparison to the Ukraine, has a modern airforce of F16s, Dassault Mirage and their indigenous fighter. It's also 150 miles away from China, across open ocean, and Taiwan has submarines.

    I'm sure that China *could* win - they are, after all, a genuine superpower. But invading across open ocean against a well defended island is far from childs play.

    And given that the Chinese are heavily dependent on Russian designs, if I was Xi, I might be thinking.... hmmm not yet.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,591

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Especially midterm polls which are totally and completely useless in predicting the outcome of the next general election.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    Yeah I agree. If anything, AUKUS will expand to include Canada (not likely NZ because of the nuclear thing) and be linked to the intelligence links. Might lure in Japan (to both).
    No, not Canada.
    Canada has become a bit like NZ.
    Dove-ish, and happy to hide behind others.

    If AUKUS expands (big if), Japan would be first in line.

    UK and Japan share interesting commonalities as the US’s primary allies in their respective regions.
    Canada is in NATO anyway
    The conversation is about the “Indo-Pacific”.
    It is interconnected, NATO to contain Russia, a southern hemisphere alliance to contain China, both under US leadership.

    Russia is now clearly in China's camp
    As discussed, there is no southern NATO.

    Russia may be clearly dependent on China, but China is not clearly dependent on Russia so the interconnection is not as strong, obvious or pre-determined as you think.
    We will see, if China invades Taiwan in the next few months having used Russia's invasion of Ukraine as cover that would not be the case
    As an aside, how many ships do you think China would need? And how do you think they could assemble them without massively telegraphing their intentions?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,397

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Liked by people that post them constantly, ironic.
    They're the wrong sort of polls...
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010
    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    AUKUS is a procurement deal dressed up as a security alliance. Not terribly significant.

    There is no Pacific NATO. There are various treaties which keep the main pro-US powers (ie Australia, Japan, South Korea) formally and informally allied.

    The UK tries to keep its hand in. France - as always - tries to maintain a little distance from the US. India even more so.

    Following AUKUS, I do expect France (and the EU) and India to get closer as a “third pole”.

    India is frankly too pro-Putin for that right now!
    India is neutral on Russia as it was neutral in the Cold War.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html

    "India looks to bail out Putin as it considers taking up Moscow's offer to buy crude oil at a reduced rate amid Western sanctions."

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China."
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
    https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/us-may-very-well-end-up-in-a-war-with-china-donald-trump/articleshow/86814966.cms
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
    How is that in any way relevant to a discussion about a treaty organisation like NATO? You have to understand that NATO, like the UN, WTO, IMF and the rest, was formed during a very specific time window. No modern US government could get a treaty like that signed now.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,061
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
    How is that in any way relevant to a discussion about a treaty organisation like NATO? You have to understand that NATO, like the UN, WTO, IMF and the rest, was formed during a very specific time window. No modern US government could get a treaty like that signed now.
    It could if the alternative is China invading most of Southeast Asia and replacing the US as the no 1 superpower
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,149
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    You don't think that the performance of Russian vs Western weapons in the Ukraine might have just given the Chinese government a little bit of pause?

    Taiwan, in comparison to the Ukraine, has a modern airforce of F16s, Dassault Mirage and their indigenous fighter. It's also 150 miles away from China, across open ocean, and Taiwan has submarines.

    I'm sure that China *could* win - they are, after all, a genuine superpower. But invading across open ocean against a well defended island is far from childs play.

    And given that the Chinese are heavily dependent on Russian designs, if I was Xi, I might be thinking.... hmmm not yet.
    The punitive severity of western sanctions on Russia will also have given him reasons to hesitate

    China is getting richer via trade with the West. It is nowhere near rich or powerful enough yet to feel confident it can prosper without this
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010
    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
    Worth remembering though, that while he made a lot of noise about putting tariffs on Chinese products, he then removed them having gotten... umm... remind me @HYUFD, what did Trump get in return for silently removing tariffs on China?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,149

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145
    edited March 2022
    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    In that unlikely event, and with Taiwan gone, why would the Senate ratify such a treaty? Why would Biden propose it when his electoral threat is an isolationist?
    Trump made clear he would go to war with China over Taiwan and slammed tariffs on Chinese imports.

    On China, Trump is even more of a hawk than Biden
    How is that in any way relevant to a discussion about a treaty organisation like NATO? You have to understand that NATO, like the UN, WTO, IMF and the rest, was formed during a very specific time window. No modern US government could get a treaty like that signed now.
    It could if the alternative is China invading most of Southeast Asia and replacing the US as the no 1 superpower
    Sorry, but I’m what world is China interested in invading “most of Southeast Asia”? As is rightly pointed out above, an invasion of Taiwan is now not likely any time soon, never mind the rest.

    And if it did happen, why would that make the US want to create a defensive treaty? It either would or wouldn’t act - it would be way too late for treaties.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,149

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    Read the article
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    You don't think that the performance of Russian vs Western weapons in the Ukraine might have just given the Chinese government a little bit of pause?

    Taiwan, in comparison to the Ukraine, has a modern airforce of F16s, Dassault Mirage and their indigenous fighter. It's also 150 miles away from China, across open ocean, and Taiwan has submarines.

    I'm sure that China *could* win - they are, after all, a genuine superpower. But invading across open ocean against a well defended island is far from childs play.

    And given that the Chinese are heavily dependent on Russian designs, if I was Xi, I might be thinking.... hmmm not yet.
    The punitive severity of western sanctions on Russia will also have given him reasons to hesitate

    China is getting richer via trade with the West. It is nowhere near rich or powerful enough yet to feel confident it can prosper without this
    China would love the West to be focused on Europe, allowing it to slowly increase its influence over its neighbours.

    But it also wants to avoid nuclear proliferation in its backyard.

    So they are conflicted. I also think they will have been utterly shocked at how poorly Russia's armed forces have performed, which will be concerning to them as an awful lot of their kit is just lightly rebranded Russian stuff.

    This is a particular issue for their airforce, where nearly half their total force of fighters are either Mig-21 or Su-27 copies (600 jets out of maybe 700). Of course, that will change with the Chengdu J-20... of which they have about 20 planes in service.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    Read the article
    "Neither Beijing nor New Delhi have condemned the invasion in Ukraine and both abstained from a vote at the United Nations calling out Russian aggression last month."
  • Options

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Liked by people that post them constantly, ironic.
    They're the wrong sort of polls...
    The same users who claim they are irrelevant will post them as soon as they show Labour going backwards.

    The double standards are as usual, hilarious.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,145

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    I also don’t quite follow how anyone can be suggesting India would align with a Russia that was a junior partner to China, when Chinese soldiers keep reading fire with Indian troops. See also the question of where Pakistan sits.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,008
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    I also don’t quite follow how anyone can be suggesting India would align with a Russia that was a junior partner to China, when Chinese soldiers keep reading fire with Indian troops. See also the question of where Pakistan sits.
    Well exactly.
    In fact, China has done a “good” job of surrounding India with Chinese allies: not just Pakistan but also Sri Lanka and Burma.

    Not sure where Bangladesh is in the mix.
  • Options
    Hmm.. Does Russian TV do live broadcasts? But I can't think why they'd stage it.

    Anton Shekhovtsov
    @A_SHEKH0VTS0V
    A funny info-op meant to make us believe, among many other things, that Russian state-controlled TV ever risks live broadcasting. Everything is pre-planned in Putin’s Russia, ranging from “incidents” to genocidal invasions. Grow up people.
    https://twitter.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1503524280247668736
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    I also don’t quite follow how anyone can be suggesting India would align with a Russia that was a junior partner to China, when Chinese soldiers keep reading fire with Indian troops. See also the question of where Pakistan sits.
    Well exactly.
    In fact, China has done a “good” job of surrounding India with Chinese allies: not just Pakistan but also Sri Lanka and Burma.

    Not sure where Bangladesh is in the mix.
    Pakistan did a trade deal with Russia

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    They are sanctions-busting, in effect.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,290
    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Though as others have found in the past, railway lines are even easier to destroy than roads.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    Read the article
    Have you read the BTL comments?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,010

    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Though as others have found in the past, railway lines are even easier to destroy than roads.
    At least the gauge is the same (5 foot) - if only because it was the Russians who built them!
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm surprisingly confident that if Russia and China team up against the West they'll both end up losing, and the West will come out of it stronger than before.

    Unless there is a nuclear holocaust in which case nobody will be stronger than before by my understanding of the term
    South Africa?
    This, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of HYUFD's thought:
    That the destruction of Western and Eastern countries "strengthens" those not directly destroyed because they would power on up the ranks. Never mind the fact that the biosphere would be a fucking state and the world economy would head backwards a number of centuries. Rank is what matters in HYUFD's Trumpist view, and a negative sum game makes sense if only the others get hurt much more than you do.

    HYUFD would cut his leg off if he knew everybody else would lose both legs.
    Well the South African President has taken a neutral stance between Russia and NATO not wholly without self interest.

    I would prefer him to be in the NATO camp but that is the reality
    Given you don't think some countries already in it should have been allowed to join NATO I am surprised you would advocate for others to either join or be allied to it.
    I refer you to my earlier post.
    HYUFD would be happy for South Africa to join because he fancies our chances of beating Eswatini in a war.
    Russia's a big boy, so we shouldn't meddle. Rank rank rank. Hit the little guy, give your lunch money to the big guy. No need to mess around with principles or whatever.
    It is only NATO and the Anglosphere which help us to contain the big boys of Russia and China.

    Yes we can defend the Falklands and Gibraltar and deal with Nationalists within our own islands but we cannot contain Putin and Xi alone
    I would suggest that Japan and South Korea - neither of which are either NATO nor Anglosphere are very much holding their end up as well.
    To an extent but as you say they are not in NATO nor are they in the AUKUS security agreement either
    You really are out of touch if you think that AUKUS would take action without the approval and engagement of South Korea and Japan
    The new president in South Korea seems quite keen on improving somewhat frosty relations with Japan, and leaning away from China and towards the alliance with the US.
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/South-Korea-election/How-Yoon-may-shift-South-Korean-foreign-policy-5-things-to-know

    HYUFD seems to have little clue.
    What contradiction does that make to my point that AUKUS would be the main responder to any threat China had to Australia? None at all
    AUKUS is not a defensive alliance, and contains no mutual provisions in the event of invasion.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
    Explicitly so, in fact. I even linked to the joint announcement from the three leaders for him.

    The five power defence agreement sort of does, if you squint, but there’s not the same assumed compulsion to act like there is with NATO. And I’m not sure how real it is for Malaysia or Singapore.
    The USA is not even in the five power defence agreement, so that is not of much real use in containing China unlike AUKUS
    Honestly you have no clue…

    The chances of the US joining another security guarantee like NATO are a million to one. That isn’t what it’s for.
    They are far more than that and if China invades Taiwan, which is probably 50 50, I would say it is a near certainty such a NATO of the Southern hemisphere emerges
    Have you met the US Senate?
    Most of them even more hostile to China than Russia
    Yes, but you’re saying they’d ratify a new NATO like treaty. I think that’s extremely unlikely in 2022. They’d probably give all sorts of Taiwan type assurances but not ratify a treaty.
    Once Taiwan was invaded, Japan, South Korea etc would be terrified they would be next on the menu for the Chinese shark without a NATO like alliance under US leadership
    You don't think that the performance of Russian vs Western weapons in the Ukraine might have just given the Chinese government a little bit of pause?

    Taiwan, in comparison to the Ukraine, has a modern airforce of F16s, Dassault Mirage and their indigenous fighter. It's also 150 miles away from China, across open ocean, and Taiwan has submarines.

    I'm sure that China *could* win - they are, after all, a genuine superpower. But invading across open ocean against a well defended island is far from childs play.

    And given that the Chinese are heavily dependent on Russian designs, if I was Xi, I might be thinking.... hmmm not yet.
    The punitive severity of western sanctions on Russia will also have given him reasons to hesitate

    China is getting richer via trade with the West. It is nowhere near rich or powerful enough yet to feel confident it can prosper without this
    China is now moving beyond this and has a decent sized internal economy, unlike Russia.
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,225
    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



  • Options
    stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,784
    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
  • Options
    India's elite used to be Western focused. All those Congress party leaders in the post war era were Oxbridge educated etc. And Western Universities still hold a strong attraction to this day. But Modi's rise has created a much stronger form of Hindu nationalism. I'd argue that more people in India are anti western and anti British now than anytime in the recent past..

    Anecdotal I know I've noticed a strong rise of online Hindu nationalist comments where ever anything British is discussed. For example a walking video in London on Youtube is usually full of London is so pretty and clean and then up will pop , Some one banging on about it all being looted from Bengal and then often gets quite nasty. Can be on anything UK railways , politics culture what ever , if one Indian says something nice, then pretty much guaranteed to have a comment spitting venom about the UK.



  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,083
    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.

    It sounds like the Russians have also managed to sabotage their own comms:

    @christogrozev
    The idiots tried to use the Era cryptophones in Kharkiv, after destroying many 3g cell towers and also replacing others with stingrays. Era needs 3g/4g to communicate.
    The Russian army is equipped with secure phones that can't work in areas where the Russian army operates.


    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500978613113524229
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    India's elite used to be Western focused. All those Congress party leaders in the post war era were Oxbridge educated etc. And Western Universities still hold a strong attraction to this day. But Modi's rise has created a much stronger form of Hindu nationalism. I'd argue that more people in India are anti western and anti British now than anytime in the recent past..

    Anecdotal I know I've noticed a strong rise of online Hindu nationalist comments where ever anything British is discussed. For example a walking video in London on Youtube is usually full of London is so pretty and clean and then up will pop , Some one banging on about it all being looted from Bengal and then often gets quite nasty. Can be on anything UK railways , politics culture what ever , if one Indian says something nice, then pretty much guaranteed to have a comment spitting venom about the UK.



    This is true. It comes from exactly the same people that take part in anti-Muslim riots and lynchings. Deeply insecure losers with inferiority complexes.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,536
    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Them pesky Albanians, huh?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,682
    edited March 2022
    Aslan said:

    India's elite used to be Western focused. All those Congress party leaders in the post war era were Oxbridge educated etc. And Western Universities still hold a strong attraction to this day. But Modi's rise has created a much stronger form of Hindu nationalism. I'd argue that more people in India are anti western and anti British now than anytime in the recent past..

    Anecdotal I know I've noticed a strong rise of online Hindu nationalist comments where ever anything British is discussed. For example a walking video in London on Youtube is usually full of London is so pretty and clean and then up will pop , Some one banging on about it all being looted from Bengal and then often gets quite nasty. Can be on anything UK railways , politics culture what ever , if one Indian says something nice, then pretty much guaranteed to have a comment spitting venom about the UK.



    This is true. It comes from exactly the same people that take part in anti-Muslim riots and lynchings. Deeply insecure losers with inferiority complexes.
    Please don't insult other posters, as I have no wish to wield the ban hammer.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    India's elite used to be Western focused. All those Congress party leaders in the post war era were Oxbridge educated etc. And Western Universities still hold a strong attraction to this day. But Modi's rise has created a much stronger form of Hindu nationalism. I'd argue that more people in India are anti western and anti British now than anytime in the recent past..

    Anecdotal I know I've noticed a strong rise of online Hindu nationalist comments where ever anything British is discussed. For example a walking video in London on Youtube is usually full of London is so pretty and clean and then up will pop , Some one banging on about it all being looted from Bengal and then often gets quite nasty. Can be on anything UK railways , politics culture what ever , if one Indian says something nice, then pretty much guaranteed to have a comment spitting venom about the UK.



    This is true. It comes from exactly the same people that take part in anti-Muslim riots and lynchings. Deeply insecure losers with inferiority complexes.
    Please don't insult other posters, as I have no wish to wield the ban hammer.
    I don't believe we were talking about anyone on this site.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120

    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Though as others have found in the past, railway lines are even easier to destroy than roads.
    It’s rumoured, towards the end of WWII, top secret German munitions laboratories were close to making Leaf Bombs.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120

    Maybe polls aren't the biggest priority at the moment?

    Liked by people that post them constantly, ironic.
    They're the wrong sort of polls...
    The same users who claim they are irrelevant will post them as soon as they show Labour going backwards.

    The double standards are as usual, hilarious.
    The rally round the flag bounce was tangible at time of covid, so was Boris vaccine boost. It seems to be there in UK and US at the moment, but not nearly as great considering the crisis. I think we might be missing something significant. I don’t know what. Maybe so close to nuclear war, watching horror of major war in Europe, our own leaders are sharing the blame for that? On topic, I still think bet on a Tory poll lead in this month of crisis is a good bet, but if Putin’s slow but relentless plod to capturing cities, annexing borders, stealing away Ukraine leaders gets there in next few weeks, there could be a horrendous polling price for Biden and the Tories, I think that is what lack of bigger bounce telling us 😕
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120
    Yokes said:

    stjohn said:

    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
    Battlefield wise, Russian losses are high but the attack isn't by any stretch a failure, its just slower than a lot expected.

    Russian military is, however, badly stretched (the variety of forces making up the attack is a giveaway). Russian military defeat on the battlefield is now considered possible, IF the West supports Ukraine properly. Putin needs some city wins to strengthen his hand in negotiations. A failure to get them means he faces a foe that still has incentive to fight on. Putin wants to end the conflict but the hand he has isn't great as of today so he will fight on to an improved bargaining position.

    Someone who knows better than me suggested the Ukrainians may have reserves to bring to bear, if they can get them trained & equipped into proper formations but time is of the essence. Russia may have huge reserves on paper but a significant call up is a signal at home that things are going wrong. In a week they may have to bite that bullet and do it anyway.

    The still short odds scenario is well established; Russia grinds out some headline success but they do not have enough troops, nor local support to occupy & manage the populous. They haven't yet sussed out how to deal with that other than they would prefer not to have to occupy it themselves. The outcome therefore, ironically stemming from military success, may be really quite crappy.

    I think the economic warfare of the West is going to be the biggest factor in putting Putin back in his box and forcing an end to the conflict. They are rumoured to be looking at further measures & need to go to the limit on the economic measures. The less palatable alternative, if they do not, is eventual Western military intervention of some kind. Some capitals have faced up to that scenario already so its not as way out as the public statements suggest. If they don't crush the Russian economy what are they going to do, just give up? Too deep in.

    One last note. An awful lot of talking going with the Swedes and Finns right now. Rumours that something on NATO and them is coming but neither government has briefed to that effect.
    I love your contributions on this Yokes. 👍🏻 Of all the words on TV, online, on PB everyday, you always bring perspectives fresh and different.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    kle4 said:

    Well that would be depressing,

    “Today, it’s premature to say that the Russian army is bogged down or losing in Ukraine because of its sustainment issues. The Russian military is likely to overcome its logistical and maintenance challenges once captured railroads become operational.”


    https://mwi.usma.edu/russias-logistical-problems-may-slow-down-russias-advance-but-they-are-unlikely-to-stop-it/

    Though as others have found in the past, railway lines are even easier to destroy than roads.
    Russia doesn’t “hold” the territory of the railways in any meaningful sense either, certainly not in any way that would prevent Ukranian special forces laying bombs or using drone strikes faster than the Russians could repair the tracks.

    As far as roads are concerned, there’s not a single bridge left north or west of Kiev that hasn’t been demolished by one side or the other, the routes into the city are through the mud and through rivers, then residential streets, one at a time.

    Thankfully, what looks like a relatively quiet night last night. Lots of street fighting on the outskirts of Kiev, but not many missiles or heavy artillery. Hopefully supply problems for the enemy.

    That said, seriously looking at getting the father-in-law out of there now, while there’s still a safe route out West to Poland.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Yokes said:

    stjohn said:

    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
    Battlefield wise, Russian losses are high but the attack isn't by any stretch a failure, its just slower than a lot expected.

    Russian military is, however, badly stretched (the variety of forces making up the attack is a giveaway). Russian military defeat on the battlefield is now considered possible, IF the West supports Ukraine properly. Putin needs some city wins to strengthen his hand in negotiations. A failure to get them means he faces a foe that still has incentive to fight on. Putin wants to end the conflict but the hand he has isn't great as of today so he will fight on to an improved bargaining position.

    Someone who knows better than me suggested the Ukrainians may have reserves to bring to bear, if they can get them trained & equipped into proper formations but time is of the essence. Russia may have huge reserves on paper but a significant call up is a signal at home that things are going wrong. In a week they may have to bite that bullet and do it anyway.

    The still short odds scenario is well established; Russia grinds out some headline success but they do not have enough troops, nor local support to occupy & manage the populous. They haven't yet sussed out how to deal with that other than they would prefer not to have to occupy it themselves. The outcome therefore, ironically stemming from military success, may be really quite crappy.

    I think the economic warfare of the West is going to be the biggest factor in putting Putin back in his box and forcing an end to the conflict. They are rumoured to be looking at further measures & need to go to the limit on the economic measures. The less palatable alternative, if they do not, is eventual Western military intervention of some kind. Some capitals have faced up to that scenario already so its not as way out as the public statements suggest. If they don't crush the Russian economy what are they going to do, just give up? Too deep in.

    One last note. An awful lot of talking going with the Swedes and Finns right now. Rumours that something on NATO and them is coming but neither government has briefed to that effect.
    Well done James, you spent six wordy paragraphs trying, and failing, to obscure your unwelcome answer. No easy way to deliver shit news, so I cannot blame you.

    Regarding your final sentence, unlike you, Magdalena Andersson is a crystal clear communicator.

    https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/magdalena-andersson-sager-nej-till-nato-medlemskap

    I note that her party is doing well in the polls. No coincidence.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,668
    An interesting story on potential anti-anti-missile systems the Russians may be using:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/russia-ukraine-weapons-decoy.html
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,365
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    I also don’t quite follow how anyone can be suggesting India would align with a Russia that was a junior partner to China, when Chinese soldiers keep reading fire with Indian troops. See also the question of where Pakistan sits.
    What? India has long had what it calls a "special relationship" with Russia, it already is aligned with Russia.

    This war does put India in a difficult position, having Russia as India's main weapons supplier if Russia becomes very dependent on China doesn't look so attractive.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,668
    An early-morning thought:

    In the long run, I think this war makes future large-scale conflict much harder for *any* country. We have seen the UK/west humiliated in Afghanistan (and less so) Iraq; and now Russia are finding Ukraine a much harder nut to crack than expected.

    These are supposed tier-one militaries against tier-two or tier-three militaries; in the case of Afghanistan, we were not really fighting a 'military' in any coherent sense of the word. Yet despite billions of dollars, pounds and roubles being thrown at the battles, they were in many ways defeats (Iraq probably being the most 'successful').

    In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, US military might 'won' the war quickly. What was lost was the occupation afterwards: and I see no reason why Ukraine will not be the same for Russia, just as Afghanistan was in the 1980s. Especially as they are finding the initial 'conquering' difficult.

    I'm not proclaiming the 'end of war': that would be stupid, and the small-scale Azerbaijan/Armenia war in 2020 seeing the aggressor win thanks to a massive amount of help from a powerful neighbour.

    However, I think it makes any country think twice or thrice before committing to military action - especially if they have been kidding themselves about their martial prowess and materials.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Yokes said:

    stjohn said:

    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
    Battlefield wise, Russian losses are high but the attack isn't by any stretch a failure, its just slower than a lot expected.

    Russian military is, however, badly stretched (the variety of forces making up the attack is a giveaway). Russian military defeat on the battlefield is now considered possible, IF the West supports Ukraine properly. Putin needs some city wins to strengthen his hand in negotiations. A failure to get them means he faces a foe that still has incentive to fight on. Putin wants to end the conflict but the hand he has isn't great as of today so he will fight on to an improved bargaining position.

    Someone who knows better than me suggested the Ukrainians may have reserves to bring to bear, if they can get them trained & equipped into proper formations but time is of the essence. Russia may have huge reserves on paper but a significant call up is a signal at home that things are going wrong. In a week they may have to bite that bullet and do it anyway.

    The still short odds scenario is well established; Russia grinds out some headline success but they do not have enough troops, nor local support to occupy & manage the populous. They haven't yet sussed out how to deal with that other than they would prefer not to have to occupy it themselves. The outcome therefore, ironically stemming from military success, may be really quite crappy.

    I think the economic warfare of the West is going to be the biggest factor in putting Putin back in his box and forcing an end to the conflict. They are rumoured to be looking at further measures & need to go to the limit on the economic measures. The less palatable alternative, if they do not, is eventual Western military intervention of some kind. Some capitals have faced up to that scenario already so its not as way out as the public statements suggest. If they don't crush the Russian economy what are they going to do, just give up? Too deep in.

    One last note. An awful lot of talking going with the Swedes and Finns right now. Rumours that something on NATO and them is coming but neither government has briefed to that effect.
    Thank you Yokes. You know far better than me but I’d disagree with the line that the attack hasn’t been a failure. Not because the losses are necessarily high (they seem to follow the rule of 3-4x than the defender) but, because a crucial factor in Luton’s plans was that the war would be over quickly.

    The simple fact is that Russia does not have time on its side. A quick, crushing victory was absolutely core to its plans because, as we are seeing, the Russian economy is vulnerable to economic sanctions. Success wasn’t to be judged in military terms alone; in fact, success was to be judged by how quickly Russia could “win”. Hence the massive invasion on multiple fronts.

    So Russia has failed. Massively.

    (Could write far more but need to feed the dogs)
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,668
    kamski said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If forced, India would side with the West, against China/Russia

    Those are the instincts of its elite

    But it would obstinately refuse to choose, for as long as it could

    "India is latest country to offer a sanction-busting lifeline to Russia, joining China"
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611333/India-looks-bail-Russia-considers-taking-Moscows-offer-buy-crude-oil-discount.html
    As I imply, India will play both sides until forced to choose
    They HAVE chosen, as the article implies...
    No they haven’t.

    They are preserving a studied non-alignment, and in this case they can get cheap oil thereby.
    I also don’t quite follow how anyone can be suggesting India would align with a Russia that was a junior partner to China, when Chinese soldiers keep reading fire with Indian troops. See also the question of where Pakistan sits.
    What? India has long had what it calls a "special relationship" with Russia, it already is aligned with Russia.

    This war does put India in a difficult position, having Russia as India's main weapons supplier if Russia becomes very dependent on China doesn't look so attractive.
    After this is over, Russia will be bent over backwards with its pants around its ankles - even (or especially) if it wins in Ukraine. It will not be a first-world power again for decades, if ever. It will be ripe for commercial exploitation, and both India and China will be licking their lips.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,218
    Yokes said:

    stjohn said:

    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
    Battlefield wise, Russian losses are high but the attack isn't by any stretch a failure, its just slower than a lot expected.

    Russian military is, however, badly stretched (the variety of forces making up the attack is a giveaway). Russian military defeat on the battlefield is now considered possible, IF the West supports Ukraine properly. Putin needs some city wins to strengthen his hand in negotiations. A failure to get them means he faces a foe that still has incentive to fight on. Putin wants to end the conflict but the hand he has isn't great as of today so he will fight on to an improved bargaining position.

    Someone who knows better than me suggested the Ukrainians may have reserves to bring to bear, if they can get them trained & equipped into proper formations but time is of the essence. Russia may have huge reserves on paper but a significant call up is a signal at home that things are going wrong. In a week they may have to bite that bullet and do it anyway…
    The quality of Ukraine reserves is quite likely good ? Since the Donbas conflict started, they’ve had 18 month conscription, with hundreds of thousands serving, and significant numbers will have some experience on the Donbas front.
    Of course organising them while the country is is semi chaos will not be trivial.

    Another fine speech from Zelensky last night, with some signals about the ongoing negotiations.
    https://twitter.com/zoyashef/status/1503541165702139904
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,668
    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    stjohn said:

    Yokes said:

    Someone has been indulging in an extended & significant disruption of Russian tactical comms around the Kyiv front.

    Its a short list of suspects.



    Hi Yokes. Any further thoughts on how the war is going to ultimately pan out?
    Battlefield wise, Russian losses are high but the attack isn't by any stretch a failure, its just slower than a lot expected.

    Russian military is, however, badly stretched (the variety of forces making up the attack is a giveaway). Russian military defeat on the battlefield is now considered possible, IF the West supports Ukraine properly. Putin needs some city wins to strengthen his hand in negotiations. A failure to get them means he faces a foe that still has incentive to fight on. Putin wants to end the conflict but the hand he has isn't great as of today so he will fight on to an improved bargaining position.

    Someone who knows better than me suggested the Ukrainians may have reserves to bring to bear, if they can get them trained & equipped into proper formations but time is of the essence. Russia may have huge reserves on paper but a significant call up is a signal at home that things are going wrong. In a week they may have to bite that bullet and do it anyway…
    The quality of Ukraine reserves is quite likely good ? Since the Donbas conflict started, they’ve had 18 month conscription, with hundreds of thousands serving, and significant numbers will have some experience on the Donbas front.
    Of course organising them while the country is is semi chaos will not be trivial.

    Another fine speech from Zelensky last night, with some signals about the ongoing negotiations.
    https://twitter.com/zoyashef/status/1503541165702139904
    That's what I wonder as well: the longer this goes on, the more time Ukraine has to react and prepare - both men and materials. Russia also has that time: but how much blood and treasure are they willing to throw into the meat grinder? Especially as they have other borders to be concerned about. There's no way they're going to leave the vastness of the east undefended.

    For Ukraine it is a defensive action, and one that is existential. They are also getting lots of good weaponry - and it seems better kit than the Russians have.

    So a real question is how many reserves (men and material) the Ukrainians have in the west of the country - either full-time troops or those in training. And as far as I can tell they've been very quiet about that. There might be many, or very few.
This discussion has been closed.