Measures more than sanctions are going to be needed to stop Putin – politicalbetting.com
The sheer awfulness of what has been going on in Ukraine over the past few days suggests, surely, that measures beyond the existing sanctions and sending military aid are going to be needed to stop Putin.
Thanks Mike you clearly have been reading the discussion today. There is no easy answer...personally I prefer giving putin an off ramp to escalating towards ww3 but others will differ
"Giving Putin an offramp" is a disgusting phrase. Yes we all get the point that is being dressed up as assessment of practical realities (which does nothing to disguise its actual intent), but it still boils down to 'less resistance the better, as that gives him an out'.
A pretty strong condemnation of France and Germany from Zelensky:
@mrsorokaa ⚡️ “I invite Merkel and Sarkozy to visit Bucha and to see the outcome of 14 years of concessions to Russia,” Zelensky said in his video address.
“You will see with your own eyes the tortured Ukrainians.”
Can anybody think why he didn't invite Boris, Cameron or May as well?
Must have slipped his mind.
Either that or "Londongrad" and Lord Lebedev and whatever is pretty irrelevant compared to supplying weapons and training troops.
I have read in a few places that the UK has become the unofficial coordinator of all external military support for Ukraine, focussing on what each country can most usefully give to fill a hole. It appears, somewhat uncharacteristically, we are the good guys for once. It makes a nice change.
How is that remotely uncharacteristic? We have a proud if not unblemished record of standing up to tyrannies and spreading democracy, from the Falklands to Kuwait to Sierra Leone to former Yugoslavia to most of Western Europe going further back.
We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame. We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia. Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons. I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
My own surmise, is that President Biden already knew - based on US/NATO/UKR intelligence - that these headlines were coming, that atrocities were happening with more coming.
Partly by deliberate design, and partly from lack of effective command & control. Paradox like the CoE?
No gaffe calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal, along with his willing henchpeople.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return
That can be Putin's win.
Indeed but totally unrealistic
Be honest: six weeks ago, did you think it was realistic that Putin's troops would have been driven out of Kyiv and Chernihiv and Zelensky would still be in power?
There's going to be a lot of pivoting to claiming those were never part of the goal.
Which one would think would be distressing to the hundreds to thousands of Russian families who have lost family members attacking those places.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think we can all read between the lines with this wellworn approach, but it never ceases to surprise to see it reworked as some noble and compassionate concern.
Not sure there is a win for us here. Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight. Crack down on Russia. And their apologists. Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also. Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues. There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
"the Russian tyrant had factored in the current sanctions regime"
Everything I have read from analysts says that actually the Kremlin have been taken aback as to the level of sanctions.
Don't forget in Putin's head the west is declining due to decadence and hedonism and lack of faith in the orthodox god. So he would have been surprised when we actually got our shit together.
We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame. We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia. Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons. I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.
But we sure did kill a lot of Iraqis, so hey, there's that.
And Afghans, don't forget. And our contribution to Libya has not been entirely positive either. And we turn a blind eye to genocide in China too.
The world is not ours to fix, which is probably just as well.
Not sure there is a win for us here. Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight. Crack down on Russia. And their apologists. Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also. Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues. There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.
My own surmise, is that President Biden already knew - based on US/NATO/UKR intelligence - that these headlines were coming, that atrocities were happening with more coming.
Partly by deliberate design, and partly from lack of effective command & control. Paradox like the CoE?
No gaffe calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal, along with his willing henchpeople.
Instead, warning and indictment.
Personally, I don't see it as a gaffe. Put the Kremlin back on their toes I reckon.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
An excellent post...the Russians will dig in and it will be carnage sadly
Not sure there is a win for us here. Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight. Crack down on Russia. And their apologists. Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also. Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues. There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.
In my excitement I misspelled "misusing", which slightly spoiled the effect.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
Not sure there is a win for us here. Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight. Crack down on Russia. And their apologists. Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also. Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues. There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
My friends, if THIS is hell-is-cyber-war Armageddon we were led to expect from Mother-Fucker Russia, well, I for one am willing & able to take it like a PBer!
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.
Perhaps we could set up a fund for bot betterment?
Out of the surplus accumulated by PB Fund for Hapless Punters and Indigent (and Indignant) Psephologists.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
Thanks, I was felling a bit depressed, hope you are right.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame. We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia. Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons. I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.
We are providing a lot of weapons and other support to Ukraine, so this is the most that we've done with the exception of Kosovo.
I do think it's not tenable to continue to buy anything from Russia. This will cause some difficulty, but temporary gas and diesel rationing is not much to endure compared to Ukraine's suffering.
Part of me dearly wants to see NATO (or even just the British and the Poles) ride to the rescue, and bring this to as rapid an end as possible. Hopefully the Ukrainians will do it themselves and we will provide all the equipment they need.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
not as many, the Ukrainians will certainly be able to deeply some units elsewhere, just that they cant with dower all of them and leve the road to the capital open again, however the Russians probably know that Ukraine will not cross the boarder and start occupying Russia, so can redeploy almost every man and tank that is not dead.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
not as many, the Ukrainians will certainly be able to deeply some units elsewhere, just that they cant with dower all of them and leve the road to the capital open again, however the Russians probably know that Ukraine will not cross the boarder and start occupying Russia, so can redeploy almost every man and tank that is not dead.
again, hope im wrong and miss reading this.
The Kyiv area will likely become low intensity which can be guarded by units withdrawn from elsewhere for refitting.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
If the Russians want to put their tiny dicks in a meat grinder.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Around Kyiv the expectation was that the Russians would dig in so that they could continue to bombard the capital with artillery and keep a large part of the Ukrainian army occupied.
I think it's very notable that the Russians decided they weren't able to do that. I take that as a Russian admission of the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.
The fight in the Donbas will be hard, but I have hope for a Ukrainian victory.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
Around Kyiv the expectation was that the Russians would dig in so that they could continue to bombard the capital with artillery and keep a large part of the Ukrainian army occupied.
I think it's very notable that the Russians decided they weren't able to do that. I take that as a Russian admission of the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.
The fight in the Donbas will be hard, but I have hope for a Ukrainian victory.
I hope you are right,
but, in the north, particular the north east, there where lots of places surrounded but not captured by the Russians, the biggest being being the city of Sumi the Russians found they did not have the manpower to capture these and instead had lots of ambushes and big supply problems and no way of solving them, so there position was binging untenable. this is not really the case in the south and east. apart from Mariupol there are few pockets of Ukraine resistance, where ambush teams can be based. and so on.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
When you've shouted "Rule Britannia," When you've sung "God save the Queen," When you've finished killing Kruger with your mouth, Will you kindly drop a shilling in my little tambourine For a gentleman in khaki ordered South?
Such devastation, from what the Russians claim was not even an objective. I wish I believed in a just world where everyone got comeuppance, it would provide more hope.
Our latest report from Hostomel and Bucha, towns NW of Kyiv, after the Russians left. Shot and edited by @leedurant prod @producerkathy
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
There was a proposal before the war to change the lyrics of the national anthem from "Ще не вмерла України" - "Ukraine has not yet perished" to "Процвітає України" - "Let Ukraine bloom" to make it more positive, but the new text also implies accepting Crimea has gone, so Zelensky is just knocking it on the head. Ukrainian people don't want to change the text.
Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
I don't know, but wonder if somebody has come up with a new verse of the national anthem possibly with a line 'the Russians are all smelly idiots' such a line might be very popular at the moment, but its not going to look good oversees or make it easier to have a peace treaty. so unhelpful even if popular.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Please could we also agree where to site the high level nuclear waste storage facility that we have needed for 40+ years? It will need to be deep enough underground to survive a couple of ice ages.
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
Ukrainians win Battle of Trostyanets on March 26th.
Russia announces it is scaling back offensive on Kyiv and Chernihiv on March 29th.
Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
There was a proposal before the war to change the lyrics of the national anthem from "Ще не вмерла України" - "Ukraine has not yet perished" to "Процвітає України" - "Let Ukraine bloom" to make it more positive, but the new text also implies accepting Crimea has gone, so Zelensky is just knocking it on the head. Ukrainian people don't want to change the text.
Star Spangled Banner is US national anthem NOT because people like it as a tune or a song; majority does not.
Rather, because it was written during & immediately after the bombardment of Baltimore in 1814.
It was there, born from the fires of war. That it's bad music and indifferent poesy, not very important.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
Thoughtful of the Russians to build the Ukrainians a mass grave before they left:
April 3 (Reuters) - Satellite images show a 45-foot-longtrench dug into the grounds of a Ukrainian church where a mass grave was found this week after Russian forces withdrew from the town of Bucha, a private U.S. company said on Sunday.
Reuters journalists who visited Bucha on Saturday saw bodies lying on the streets of the town, 37 km (23 miles) northwest of the capital Kyiv. A mass grave at one church was still open, with hands and feet poking through the red clay heaped on top.
I completely agree with the header. The time has come to start supplying tanks and fighter planes to Ukraine. We also need to cut every Russian bank out of SWIFT.
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
That's because you are part of civilized society and not KGB human filth.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
.👍🏻.
I'm not sure about that reactor design - the biological shield looks a bit flimsy, where is the moderator, cooling system, controls rods and the really, really important bit?
The kettle for the the operators to make their tea.
Given Putin has now confirmed himself as the new Stalin, we need to ignore the Russian sympathizers psiren calls for "giving him an out". No, we must ramp up sanctions and Ukrainian armaments, and keep fighting until Russia fully retreats from or Ukrainian territory or bleeds out.
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....
We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.
Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.
OTOH his use of definite and indefinite articles seems okay: that’s the usual tell of a Slavic speaker without a very fluent grasp of English as Slavic languages don’t use them.
As to ellipses, I couldn’t get more than a chapter into John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World as he used them where everyone else would use full stops.
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
.👍🏻.
The salesman has promised me it will hold 10 mini-nukes.....
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
As a Russian, your odds of surviving for five weeks in a tracked vehicle in Ukraine must be up there with the odds of surviving in a WW2 German U-boat.
"In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats, of which 785 were destroyed"
7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill? And in how many decades?
The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
.👍🏻.
The salesman has promised me it will hold 10 mini-nukes.....
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
Crew Resource Management was a problem for all airlines for decades (and still is in some parts of the world). There were lots of incidents of captains overruling first officers who were correct (often with disastrous results) in western airlines too, especially if the captain was a WW2 veteran and didn’t want to hear it if the first officer was still in nappies when the captain was giving Hitler a blood nose.
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
Crew Resource Management was a problem for all airlines for decades (and still is in some parts of the world). There were lots of incidents of captains overruling first officers who were correct (often with disastrous results) in western airlines too, especially if the captain was a WW2 veteran and didn’t want to hear it if the first officer was still in nappies when the captain was giving Hitler a blood nose.
Korean was / is particularly acute e.g. all the historic norms of drinking with elders.
Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....
We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.
It was a lovely enigmatic ending. The whispering breath stopped as he dies like the heartbeat nocturnal animals. With a tolling bell he was at peace. After death riding away on white horse framed by the burning carriage. The roof coming in closes the shot.
I liked the slower pace to series 6, interesting characters orbiting a main focal point like comets in and out a suns influence. It’s been a rewarding journey these ten years. Has it really been that long? 😯
Jeremy Bowen A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....
We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.
Peaky Blinders is worth it for the photography and the music. The drama is a bonus. Personnally I love it when Thomas Shelby comes out on top - an ultra cool protagonist.
russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
Not just a mass grave but one with chemicals added to rot the bodies quickly to destroy evidence.
Army logistics branch arrived in Shanghai to help implementing lockdowns at communities. This suggests 0COVID policy is here to stay, not only in SH but anywhere else in China. A large quarantine center w private rooms will come online in weeks for 500-700K patients o/s of SH.
"Giving Putin an offramp" is a disgusting phrase. Yes we all get the point that is being dressed up as assessment of practical realities (which does nothing to disguise its actual intent), but it still boils down to 'less resistance the better, as that gives him an out'.
I don't think wanting an offramp implies less resistance. If there's less resistance, there's no reason for Putin to use an offramp.
On topic there are lots of Somethings that can be done and haven't yet but they have trade-offs or political unpopularity, that's why they haven't been done yet. If we're serious about this we need to let politicians do the unpopular things.
- Reduce dependence on fossil fuels: Windmills and transmission lines everywhere, you'll get used to the view. Roll back environmental review and local planning control to make this happen. Keep old nuclear power stations running, they probably won't blow up and if they do it probably won't kill you. Raise taxes and energy prices to pay for subsidies, it'll cost a lot but suck it up. Make WFH permanent where possible and cut back on travel, we know how to do that after covid.
- Mend relations with China. Without the Chinese sanctions can only do so much. They haven't invaded Taiwan so far and Hong Kong and Xinjiang are domestic issues that realistically the west doesn't have much leverage over. Hold your nose and cut a deal.
- Give visas to educated Russians. Russians are unpopular right now but the more people leave the less resources Russia has. Drain the brains.
Comments
I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia.
Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons.
I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.
Partly by deliberate design, and partly from lack of effective command & control. Paradox like the CoE?
No gaffe calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal, along with his willing henchpeople.
Instead, warning and indictment.
Which one would think would be distressing to the hundreds to thousands of Russian families who have lost family members attacking those places. I think we can all read between the lines with this wellworn approach, but it never ceases to surprise to see it reworked as some noble and compassionate concern.
Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight.
Crack down on Russia. And their apologists.
Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also.
Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues.
There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
Everything I have read from analysts says that actually the Kremlin have been taken aback as to the level of sanctions.
Don't forget in Putin's head the west is declining due to decadence and hedonism and lack of faith in the orthodox god. So he would have been surprised when we actually got our shit together.
The world is not ours to fix, which is probably just as well.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
And in how many decades?
@Leon is busy staring at a 12,000 year old statue of a man's penis this evening.
Out of the surplus accumulated by PB Fund for Hapless Punters and Indigent (and Indignant) Psephologists.
Not easy viewing.
I think we are going to have to send Ukraine the sort of weapons it needs to push the Russians out of the country ie not simply defensive weapons.
How that can be done and what the risks are I do not pretend to know.
I do think it's not tenable to continue to buy anything from Russia. This will cause some difficulty, but temporary gas and diesel rationing is not much to endure compared to Ukraine's suffering.
Part of me dearly wants to see NATO (or even just the British and the Poles) ride to the rescue, and bring this to as rapid an end as possible. Hopefully the Ukrainians will do it themselves and we will provide all the equipment they need.
again, hope im wrong and miss reading this.
I say turn the handle.
I think it's very notable that the Russians decided they weren't able to do that. I take that as a Russian admission of the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.
The fight in the Donbas will be hard, but I have hope for a Ukrainian victory.
I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?
Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.
And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time.
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041
but, in the north, particular the north east, there where lots of places surrounded but not captured by the Russians, the biggest being being the city of Sumi the Russians found they did not have the manpower to capture these and instead had lots of ambushes and big supply problems and no way of solving them, so there position was binging untenable. this is not really the case in the south and east. apart from Mariupol there are few pockets of Ukraine resistance, where ambush teams can be based. and so on.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
When you've shouted "Rule Britannia,"
When you've sung "God save the Queen,"
When you've finished killing Kruger with your mouth,
Will you kindly drop a shilling in my little tambourine
For a gentleman in khaki ordered South?
Our latest report from Hostomel and Bucha, towns NW of Kyiv, after the Russians left. Shot and edited by @leedurant prod @producerkathy
https://twitter.com/BowenBBC/status/1510525340078252033
that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.
https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510207703037235208
Russia announces it is scaling back offensive on Kyiv and Chernihiv on March 29th.
I think those two events are connected.
Rather, because it was written during & immediately after the bombardment of Baltimore in 1814.
It was there, born from the fires of war. That it's bad music and indifferent poesy, not very important.
.👍🏻.
BTW, thank you, williamglenn, for Ukrainian info & insights, most cogent & timely putting it VERY mildly.
April 3 (Reuters) - Satellite images show a 45-foot-longtrench dug into the grounds of a Ukrainian church where a mass grave was found this week after Russian forces withdrew from the town of Bucha, a private U.S. company said on Sunday.
Reuters journalists who visited Bucha on Saturday saw bodies lying on the streets of the town, 37 km (23 miles) northwest of the capital Kyiv. A mass grave at one church was still open, with hands and feet poking through the red clay heaped on top.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/satellite-images-show-45-foot-long-trench-grave-site-bucha-maxar-2022-04-03/?
A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.
https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146
The kettle for the the operators to make their tea.
We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/peaky-blinders-finale-review-dreary-slog-boom-twist-saved/
As to ellipses, I couldn’t get more than a chapter into John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World as he used them where everyone else would use full stops.
"In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats, of which 785 were destroyed"
https://booksandbao.com/drink-korean-alcohol-etiquette-korea/
I liked the slower pace to series 6, interesting characters orbiting a main focal point like comets in and out a suns influence. It’s been a rewarding journey these ten years. Has it really been that long? 😯
Please do so to avoid the BH.
https://twitter.com/Junheng_Li/status/1510717695871766528?s=20&t=ijJSH9Hv_uwnw-nzBFvqFA
Twenty-five miles plus in all directions of nothing but more & more fresh-water marsh. Also lots of bugs & gators.
Stray far, and you'll be lucky if some hunters find you . . . eventually . . .
- Reduce dependence on fossil fuels: Windmills and transmission lines everywhere, you'll get used to the view. Roll back environmental review and local planning control to make this happen. Keep old nuclear power stations running, they probably won't blow up and if they do it probably won't kill you. Raise taxes and energy prices to pay for subsidies, it'll cost a lot but suck it up. Make WFH permanent where possible and cut back on travel, we know how to do that after covid.
- Mend relations with China. Without the Chinese sanctions can only do so much. They haven't invaded Taiwan so far and Hong Kong and Xinjiang are domestic issues that realistically the west doesn't have much leverage over. Hold your nose and cut a deal.
- Give visas to educated Russians. Russians are unpopular right now but the more people leave the less resources Russia has. Drain the brains.
@oryxspioenkop
·
9h
My backlog of destroyed and captured Russian equipment also has three backlogs of itself.