Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I think you underestimate just how much Russia will be a pariah state, and Russians a pariah people. I will have nothing to do with them ever again.
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
An outside the box 2 part suggestion:
a) 'the west/NATO' should offer Moldova speedy entry in to NATO and feasibly EU, on the the condition that it recognises the independence of the Transnistria State, and feasibly EU
and
b) 'the west/NATO' should offer to recognise the independence of Transnistria, ambassadors seat in the UK all of that, so long as it askes the Russians soldiers to leave.
The Moldovans may not go for it, the Transnistria may not go for it, I don't know they may all go for it and then 6 months latter the Russian troops come back. But I think its just possible that it could work.
Harder to imagine it working for Georga but possibly
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I disagree. The lesson here for me is we have ample military capability. I think there's some jerking of knees going on.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
Actually they were Douglas A-4 Skyhawks, not BAe Hawks.
Another good header, @Cyclefree . I was struck by how little reaction the story about what was effectively sexual assault of a schoolgirl by Met police, with the reported acquiescence of her school, got here.
Though the fact that we’re teetering, and possibly edging away from the brink of armageddon does provide something of a distraction.
Part of it is what can we say that is new? That much of the Met is unthinking, misogynist, racist and unaccountable has been done ad nauseum. Hopefully a new leader can start to change it, but doubt they will have much success.
The Met needs pulling down and rebuilding from the ground up. But it was the behaviour of the school which shocked me.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I think you underestimate just how much Russia will be a pariah state, and Russians a pariah people. I will have nothing to do with them ever again.
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
Including the 8,000 or so that have been arrested and imprisoned for protesting the war?
Collective responsibility and collative guilt are terrible ideas and typically induce the resentment that spores the next tyrant and more war.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Has Putin just turned on the billionaires and the oligarchs?
He seems to have made a speech saying people who can't get by without a villa in France and oysters and so on are basically not Russian and exist in their heads "somewhere else".
Putin’s claims were obviously lies, but process is important in a civilised world.
Important fact in today’s historic ICJ decision. The Court clearly stated it found NO signs of what Putin called a ‘genocide’ in Ukraine as one of the excuses for his invasion. Thus Russian invasion is unprovoked and based... on a fake. This is now a cold fact established by ICJ. https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504154532074377218
No Nato membership or foreign military bases. That seems a decent offer but could Putin really sell that as a win?
Presumably they are yielding Crimea forever, and maybe the separatist bits in the East?
Which is not unjustifiable. Crimea is more "Russian" than "Ukrainian"
From my perspective it certainly is unjustifiable. Crimea has been Ukrainian since 1954. It voted to leave the Soviet Union. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for a commitment by the US/UK/Russia to respect its territorial integrity. It's territory has been taken by force and its citizens held hostage by a terrorist state. A referendum on its future could be held with proper international oversight.
Now maybe 'realism' suggests you sometimes have to appease terror and violence. But that's what it would be.
A plebiscite in Crimea - which would be assumed to be won by pro-Russians - is perhaps the fig leaf we need to overlook the sordid nature of its annexation by Russia.
Of course, Russia would argue they already held one like 3 weeks after they annexed it (though at the time they pretended it wasn't official troops IIRC). Very efficient in democracy, those Russians.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I think you underestimate just how much Russia will be a pariah state, and Russians a pariah people. I will have nothing to do with them ever again.
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
Including the 8,000 or so that have been arrested and imprisoned for protesting the war?
Collective responsibility and collative guilt are terrible ideas and typically induce the resentment that spores the next tyrant and more war.
Yes, including them. Do you imagine they'd want otherwise?
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Covid is addling your brain. Earlier today you said you still preferred Corbyn to Boris, then you expressed support for Stop The War, now you ask why we need to re-arm
Get well soon!
Thank you. But I think you're being driven by a liking for the idea of big military spending rather than an analysis of why exactly it's needed. I'm not saying it isn't needed, I'm just a bit doubtful of doing it off the back of this. Dangerous Dogs Act.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Well, would it be for the greater good?
What does normalising the annexations gain you over disputing them, but not actively pursuing military means to regain them? And, would it necessarily be so bad if Ukraine were to regain them militarily at some point int he future, as Croatia did with those parts of Croatia that had been occupied by the Serbs?
It’s debatable. Personally I’m not sure. It sticks in the craw to let a bully like Russia away with its annexations. And it sets a bad precedent.
On the other hand, I’m extremely keen to avoid further bloodshed and to allow Ukraine to get on with much-needed economic reconstruction.
Probably from a pure realpolitik perspective we in the West would want to continue to see Russia drained, but it comes at the price of Ukrainian lives.
If you give this to Russia rebuilding will be much harder because you never know when they will invade again
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Putin’s claims were obviously lies, but process is important in a civilised world.
Important fact in today’s historic ICJ decision. The Court clearly stated it found NO signs of what Putin called a ‘genocide’ in Ukraine as one of the excuses for his invasion. Thus Russian invasion is unprovoked and based... on a fake. This is now a cold fact established by ICJ. https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504154532074377218
That's why he has come up with like 9 more reasons for it. If all are disproved, he can find another.
Putin's speech - is it to the Russian people? Terrifying. Like a last throw of the dice.
I think a lot of Putin's resentment comes from never having had the ability to enjoy quite the same lifestyle as the people in his patronage. He can only create an imitation of it with his palace on the Black Sea and his entourage of sycophants.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I think you underestimate just how much Russia will be a pariah state, and Russians a pariah people. I will have nothing to do with them ever again.
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
Including the 8,000 or so that have been arrested and imprisoned for protesting the war?
Collective responsibility and collative guilt are terrible ideas and typically induce the resentment that spores the next tyrant and more war.
Yes, including them. Do you imagine they'd want otherwise?
During WW2, the Soviets deported to Siberia entire nationalities living in Southern Russia.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
I am wondering if they might look for a quick unification with Romania. Transdnistria is a problem, though.
Apart from the bits of the right-hand bank of the Dniester de facto controlled by Transnistria, it was never Romanian, apart from the occupation during WW2.
They basically speak Romanian, with some Russian and Ukrainian. And were part of the Principality of Wallachia until 1812 when the Turks gave it to Russia. And as has been said, I believe seeking union with Romania is a current political discussion.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Covid is addling your brain. Earlier today you said you still preferred Corbyn to Boris, then you expressed support for Stop The War, now you ask why we need to re-arm
Get well soon!
Thank you. But I think you're being driven by a liking for the idea of big military spending rather than an analysis of why exactly it's needed. I'm not saying it isn't needed, I'm just a bit doubtful of doing it off the back of this. Dangerous Dogs Act.
I'm really not being driven by "liking the idea of defence spending". We need to re-arm for the reasons everyone else has already explained to you: Russia probably won't go away and hide in a corner, if and when this ends. There is a strong chance it will learn, and try again. We need to deter them
And behind Russia, China.
The relatively safe globalised world we have known since 1989 is now over. It is very sad, I miss it dearly, but this is the case
Putin's speech - is it to the Russian people? Terrifying. Like a last throw of the dice.
I think a lot of Putin's resentment comes from never having had the ability to enjoy quite the same lifestyle as the people in his patronage. He can only create an imitation of it with his palace on the Black Sea and his entourage of sycophants.
He did seem rather bitter and ever more unhinged in that video.
Not sure anyone watching it could reasonably continue to conclude that ‘Russia is slowly but inexorably achieving its goals’.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Wow. Leaving aside any other point, he clearly doesn't understand the power of imagery. Surprised he didn't complain Zelensky also has an unkempt beard and bags under his eyes. A little touch up so he doesn't look knackered in front of the Congress would should respect.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
I am wondering if they might look for a quick unification with Romania. Transdnistria is a problem, though.
Apart from the bits of the right-hand bank of the Dniester de facto controlled by Transnistria, it was never Romanian, apart from the occupation during WW2.
They basically speak Romanian, with some Russian and Ukrainian. And were part of the Principality of Wallachia until 1812 when the Turks gave it to Russia. And as has been said, I believe seeking union with Romania is a current political discussion.
Moldova yes, but I was talking about Transnistria. Its origins lie with a "Moldavian ASSR" carved out of Ukraine in the 1920s in response to Romania taking over Bessarabia (modern Moldova). Then in 1940, when the Soviets retook Bessarabia, they added most of the Moldavian ASSR to it, shifted certain Ukrainian speaking areas to Ukraine and called it the Moldavian SSR (as opposed to ASSR). That is what constitutes present Moldova.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I disagree. The lesson here for me is we have ample military capability. I think there's some jerking of knees going on.
If the Russians use their military budget to pay for military capability, and the US elects a Trumpist who withdraws from NATO, then Putin has shown a willingness for Russia to launch large-scale war in Europe.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Wow. Leaving aside any other point, he clearly doesn't understand the power of imagery. Surprised he didn't complain Zelensky also has an unkempt beard and bags under his eyes. A little touch up so he doesn't look knackered in front of the Congress would should respect.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
A nation with nukes has never been conquered in war, nor has any nuked-up regime been overthrown by outsiders
If Putin falls, it will be because Russians topple him
Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.
Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those 13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say that.
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
A nation with nukes has never been conquered in war, nor has any nuked-up regime been overthrown by outsiders
If Putin falls, it will be because Russians topple him
Yes and only if Russia is fully forced out of Ukraine first
Just as well elections are not restricted to 18 to 24 year olds here or in France, otherwise Corbyn would now be UK PM and France's presidential election would be a runoff between Melenchon on the far left and Le Pen on the far right
"I understand times are hard, but doesn't the President of the #Ukraine own a suit? I don't have much respect for current members of the U.S. Congress either, but I still wouldn't address them wearing a t-shirt. I wouldn't want to disrespect the institution or the Unites States."
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
The West? Yes. That ship already sailed in practice, even if Russia is seeking to expand them.
Yet the Russian occupation has turned these regions into gangster economies, trashed any hope the local population has of improving their lot, and turned most of them against Russia. Ukraine ‘recognising’ Russian dominance there is very unlikely to be the end of the story. For a start, once there is any sort of peace, anyone there with any ambition or skills will simply leave for Ukraine.
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
There's going to be a lot of rethinking about defence in the light of this horrible war. Armed drones, portable surface-to-air missiles and the latest anti-tank weapons make any military convoy a pretty easy target for a defender, and extremely difficult to detect and protect against.
OTOH, there's also the alarming prospect of a few $6K armed drones getting into the hands of domestic terrorists.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Covid is addling your brain. Earlier today you said you still preferred Corbyn to Boris, then you expressed support for Stop The War, now you ask why we need to re-arm
Get well soon!
Thank you. But I think you're being driven by a liking for the idea of big military spending rather than an analysis of why exactly it's needed. I'm not saying it isn't needed, I'm just a bit doubtful of doing it off the back of this. Dangerous Dogs Act.
I'm really not being driven by "liking the idea of defence spending". We need to re-arm for the reasons everyone else has already explained to you: Russia probably won't go away and hide in a corner, if and when this ends. There is a strong chance it will learn, and try again. We need to deter them
And behind Russia, China.
The relatively safe globalised world we have known since 1989 is now over. It is very sad, I miss it dearly, but this is the case
Russia is just as likely to learn the opposite imo. That they can no longer do this sort of shit. And Germany is tooling up now. That dwarfs any extra we could do. No need for us to do more in the military space at all as far as I can see. Why should we? We spend loads on defence already.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Is the Old Testament based on fact?
Well the New Testament is based on fiction.
I mean, they called it the crucifixion, if it was real, they would have called it the cruciFACT.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
Just as well elections are not restricted to 18 to 24 year olds here or in France, otherwise Corbyn would now be UK PM and France's presidential election would be a runoff between Melenchon on the far left and Le Pen on the far right
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Even in your answer to show no empathy with those lost as has been stated several times on here
The old testament is of no interest to me and your Falklands comments were in part fake and certainly ill informed nonsense
I was explaining the sinking of the Belgrano to a constituent in Bangor on behalf of the late Wyn Roberts in the 1983 election campaign and the loss of the Welsh guards in Bluff Cove was very raw at the time
Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.
Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.
There's this crazy situation developing: the Russian army won't fight, so can't defeat Ukraine; the Ukrainians lack the military to actually beat the Russians; the Russian economy is crippled; but Putin remains personally popular among a great number of Russians, and retains full control of the security apparatus.
They can't win. They can't admit defeat and retreat. There is little chance of a successful putsch.
Another good header, @Cyclefree . I was struck by how little reaction the story about what was effectively sexual assault of a schoolgirl by Met police, with the reported acquiescence of her school, got here.
Though the fact that we’re teetering, and possibly edging away from the brink of armageddon does provide something of a distraction, it’s still distinctly uncomfortable.
That was horrific on so many levels, the more you read on that story, the angrier I got, the fact she was on her period and she is now self harming.
The police in that part of the world have an obsession with inappropriate strip searches.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
Why do we need to re-arm given that Russia has proven incapable of pulling off even an invasion of its much weaker neighbour?
Because contrary to what some might think, they are not stupid. They will look at this debacle and learn. They have already been learning - as shown by the short range ballistic missiles which are proving so difficult to shoot down by anti-missile systems because of decoys. Even under a new and more benign leader - if that could ever happen - they will still look at how things went wrong and try to put them right.
We made a massive mistake talking in terms of a peace dividend after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It would be wise to learn those lessons because we can be sure the Russians will.
I think you underestimate just how much Russia will be a pariah state, and Russians a pariah people. I will have nothing to do with them ever again.
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
Including the 8,000 or so that have been arrested and imprisoned for protesting the war?
Collective responsibility and collative guilt are terrible ideas and typically induce the resentment that spores the next tyrant and more war.
Yes, including them. Do you imagine they'd want otherwise?
During WW2, the Soviets deported to Siberia entire nationalities living in Southern Russia.
Including of course the Crimean Tatars which formed the largest people group in the Crimean peninsula until 1944. Then Stalin deported all of them with a death toll in the tens of thousands, pehaps as many as half the prewar population was killed, and the Tartars were only permitted to return in the late 1980s. Please remember that when discussing the idea that Crimea is "Russian". It is not and it never was. Since 2014 by the way Putin has renewed the oppression of the Crimean Tatars including destroying their carefully rebuilt cultural organisations.
Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.
Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.
There's this crazy situation developing: the Russian army won't fight, so can't defeat Ukraine; the Ukrainians lack the military to actually beat the Russians; the Russian economy is crippled; but Putin remains personally popular among a great number of Russians, and retains full control of the security apparatus.
They can't win. They can't admit defeat and retreat. There is little chance of a successful putsch.
As somebody else said: Z is for Zugzwang
This horrible war will probably now devolve into a bitter ceasefire, which pleases no one, and which leaves Putin in place, desperately repressing an isolated and impoverished Russia
Dreadful, but still better than nuclear armageddon
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Perhaps you should ask your wife to explain the concept of the New Covenant?
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those 13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say that.
You're wasting your time. He's got his fantasy in his mind's eye based on some movies or video games and a tabloid interpretation of Thatcher, warfare, and strength.
Your reality cannot defeat his fantasy. Any points you make that are unanswerable will be ignored, moved away from, "My point was that...", etc.
Some people don't have the strength to accept error.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
His comments on the Falklands war has convinced me that HYUFD is in fact a Chris Morris/Sasha Baron Cohen character.
Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.
Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.
There's this crazy situation developing: the Russian army won't fight, so can't defeat Ukraine; the Ukrainians lack the military to actually beat the Russians; the Russian economy is crippled; but Putin remains personally popular among a great number of Russians, and retains full control of the security apparatus.
They can't win. They can't admit defeat and retreat. There is little chance of a successful putsch.
As somebody else said: Z is for Zugzwang
This horrible war will probably now devolve into a bitter ceasefire, which pleases no one, and which leaves Putin in place, desperately repressing an isolated and impoverished Russia
Dreadful, but still better than nuclear armageddon
I don't see what's dreadful about it. Not being killed is pretty pleasing to everyone I'd have said.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
There is a distinction between empathy and allowing the Argentines to have taken the Falklands and British territory without fighting them at all costs.
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Perhaps you should ask your wife to explain the concept of the New Covenant?
Did not replace the Old Covenant of the Old Testament, indeed in some respects refreshed and renewed it
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Moldova is not in NATO and its active military is less than 5% the size of Ukraine's
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Well, when someone like so normally calm like Carynx loses it over a chauvanistic comment by HY, I always think he's scraping the barrel of things to try and inflame his nationalist passions.
Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.
Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.
There's this crazy situation developing: the Russian army won't fight, so can't defeat Ukraine; the Ukrainians lack the military to actually beat the Russians; the Russian economy is crippled; but Putin remains personally popular among a great number of Russians, and retains full control of the security apparatus.
They can't win. They can't admit defeat and retreat. There is little chance of a successful putsch.
This horrible war will probably now devolve into a bitter ceasefire, which pleases no one, and which leaves Putin in place, desperately repressing an isolated and impoverished Russia
Dreadful, but still better than nuclear armageddon
Someone mentioned earlier about Saddam and Iraq in 1991 - the problem was a) much of the coalition assembled to liberate Kuwait had no desire to overthrow Saddam and b) there was real concern in Washington over what would happen to Iraq if Saddam fell - would it be partitioned with perhaps an independent Kurdish State (which wouldn't please Turkey or Syria) and/or an independent pro-Iranian area (no one in Washington wanted Tehran to benefit from the fall of Saddam).
In the absence of anyone or anything capable of holding Iraq together, Saddam surviving was therefore the least worst option.
I don't think it's a good idea having a country with nuclear weapons fall into anarchy, do you?
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
A nation with nukes has never been conquered in war, nor has any nuked-up regime been overthrown by outsiders
If Putin falls, it will be because Russians topple him
Agreed, but we must ensure a sufficient amount of rope. I dont think we can trust any ceasefire he is prepared to offer anyway, so it makes sense to get the Ukrainian armed forces to the point where the Russians have to back down because they have no other choice. Incidentally if these latest Russian casualties are accurate then I think the breaking point may be very close indeed.
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Quite. We're being asked to believe simultaeneously that Russia is unable to invade Ukraine from 3 sides, but that there is also an imminent threat of them sailing up the Thames.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
There's going to be a lot of rethinking about defence in the light of this horrible war. Armed drones, portable surface-to-air missiles and the latest anti-tank weapons make any military convoy a pretty easy target for a defender, and extremely difficult to detect and protect against.
OTOH, there's also the alarming prospect of a few $6K armed drones getting into the hands of domestic terrorists.
It is pretty alarming already.
I could knock one up in the shed for a lot less than $6k without even ending up on a list (although I'm already on the official CAA list of people to harass if the local airport does a Gatwick). The explosives are the hard part, the rest is trivial.
The military ones are more expensive because they are less vulnerable to jamming or signal tracking, but that's irrelevant when it comes to terrorist use.
I would guess there's plenty of interesting technology on the roof of Downing Street but it can't cover everywhere.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
What is being forgotten by some in this debate today is that the UK deterrent is not independent - it is too dependent on the US in a number of ways, and always was, certainly the submarine one. The French, in contrast, built their own M1 and M2 MSBS, rather than rely on Polaris and Trident. So if the UK fries any city, the US will come in for a great deal of the blame. Which raises some interesting issues about control and surveillance.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Moldova is not in NATO and its active military is less than 5% the size of Ukraine's
Yes, that's why the suggestion to fast track them into NATO. No better time to join than now. That goes for Sweden and Finland too.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
I would note even on the correct calculation the CFR was still well under 0.5%
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
I would note even on the correct calculation the CFR was still well under 0.5%
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Moldova is not in NATO and its active military is less than 5% the size of Ukraine's
Yes, that's why the suggestion to fast track them into NATO. No better time to join than now. That goes for Sweden and Finland too.
And as soon as they applied Russian forces would move in
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
If he is overthrown, it will be by a charismatic junior officer. Because the senior officers are too compromised and have benefited too much from Putin's reign.
Comments
The Russians have manged to turn opportunity into a near doomsday. I hold every one of them responsible.
a) 'the west/NATO' should offer Moldova speedy entry in to NATO and feasibly EU, on the the condition that it recognises the independence of the Transnistria State, and feasibly EU
and
b) 'the west/NATO' should offer to recognise the independence of Transnistria, ambassadors seat in the UK all of that, so long as it askes the Russians soldiers to leave.
The Moldovans may not go for it, the Transnistria may not go for it, I don't know they may all go for it and then 6 months latter the Russian troops come back. But I think its just possible that it could work.
Harder to imagine it working for Georga but possibly
But it was the behaviour of the school which shocked me.
Are we sure he’s not a PB Tory, perhaps posting regularly as @MrEd or something?
That's why we have to be exceptionally careful
Collective responsibility and collative guilt are terrible ideas and typically induce the resentment that spores the next tyrant and more war.
Important fact in today’s historic ICJ decision. The Court clearly stated it found NO signs of what Putin called a ‘genocide’ in Ukraine as one of the excuses for his invasion. Thus Russian invasion is unprovoked and based... on a fake. This is now a cold fact established by ICJ.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504154532074377218
https://twitter.com/PFTCommenter/status/1504114832479600643?s=20&t=T4fLhweVijdKyHKCdxrGpw
‘I’m no fan of Putin but..’
You think?!
And behind Russia, China.
The relatively safe globalised world we have known since 1989 is now over. It is very sad, I miss it dearly, but this is the case
Not sure anyone watching it could reasonably continue to conclude that ‘Russia is slowly but inexorably achieving its goals’.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504141027879313412
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjpgJjdk52c
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
I also suggest you read more of the Old Testament, God certainly did not act in a weak and mild manner when defending Israel and the Jews
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
https://order-order.com/2022/03/16/bridgen-withdrawing-boris-no-confidence-letter/
If we are not prepared for it we will regret it.
If Putin falls, it will be because Russians topple him
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1503768312236421120
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say that.
OTOH, there's also the alarming prospect of a few $6K armed drones getting into the hands of domestic terrorists.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
I mean, they called it the crucifixion, if it was real, they would have called it the cruciFACT.
The old testament is of no interest to me and your Falklands comments were in part fake and certainly ill informed nonsense
I was explaining the sinking of the Belgrano to a constituent in Bangor on behalf of the late Wyn Roberts in the 1983 election campaign and the loss of the Welsh guards in Bluff Cove was very raw at the time
They can't win.
They can't admit defeat and retreat.
There is little chance of a successful putsch.
The police in that part of the world have an obsession with inappropriate strip searches.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language
I am shocked that police have an issue with misogyny and racism.
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
https://theathletic.com/news/chelsea-to-play-champions-league-games-without-fans-after-eu-sanctions/YRuE8UbFiFHG/
This horrible war will probably now devolve into a bitter ceasefire, which pleases no one, and which leaves Putin in place, desperately repressing an isolated and impoverished Russia
Dreadful, but still better than nuclear armageddon
He's got his fantasy in his mind's eye based on some movies or video games and a tabloid interpretation of Thatcher, warfare, and strength.
Your reality cannot defeat his fantasy. Any points you make that are unanswerable will be ignored, moved away from, "My point was that...", etc.
Some people don't have the strength to accept error.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Nuking the Argies in 1982 is something else.
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
In the absence of anyone or anything capable of holding Iraq together, Saddam surviving was therefore the least worst option.
I don't think it's a good idea having a country with nuclear weapons fall into anarchy, do you?
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
I could knock one up in the shed for a lot less than $6k without even ending up on a list (although I'm already on the official CAA list of people to harass if the local airport does a Gatwick). The explosives are the hard part, the rest is trivial.
The military ones are more expensive because they are less vulnerable to jamming or signal tracking, but that's irrelevant when it comes to terrorist use.
I would guess there's plenty of interesting technology on the roof of Downing Street but it can't cover everywhere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/56549517
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
No better time to join than now. That goes for Sweden and Finland too.