That’s a bad poll for the Tories with the Lib Dems picking up . National polling is hiding the huge leads Labour and the Lib Dems have in most of the council areas which are having elections .
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
I haven't been arguing for or against a particular policy, though I have my own views. I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
Of course its responsible. It is British policy to provide maximum support to Ukraine and to see Russia lose this war. What Truss said 100% fits with British policy.
We don't need to "conclude" negotiations with our allies before the Foreign Secretary of the UK can say what the UK's objectives are - it is entirely appropriate and diplomatic for the UK's top diplomat to be diplomatically saying in a keynote speech the UK's objectives. That is how Foreign Secretary's have conducted diplomacy for a long time before Truss too.
If you object to the UK's objectives as you don't want Russia to lose the war, that's a different matter.
and feel free to white feather @Dura_Ace for posting it. Almost impossible to accept it is not satirical.
If they want to go nuclear, then fine, that's their choice and if they do fire their nukes we must fire ours too and annihilate them and hope we can intercept as many of their weapons as we can.
Its not in my control whether they want to go nuclear or not. All we can decide is what do we want to do.
So what do you want to do? Do you want to support Ukraine all the way so that it can defeat Russia conventionally and see all Russian forces removed from all of Ukraine including all of Donbas and Crimea?
Or do you want to say to Ukraine "sorry we're afraid of Vlad's nukes" and tell them they're on their own?
The British government seem to have opted for option 1, I am glad for that and back that 100%. Do you, yes or no?
If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.
It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.
Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.
And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.
Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
Except it's not unambiguous. What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ? We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.
'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.
Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
I haven't been arguing for or against a particular policy, though I have my own views. I just think cabinet ministers conducting a debate which we've barely started, and certainly haven't concluded with our allies, by way of public speeches, isn't particularly responsible. And when they're transparently doing it as a pitch for the party leadership, it's irresponsible.
Of course its responsible. It is British policy to provide maximum support to Ukraine and to see Russia lose this war. What Truss said 100% fits with British policy.
We don't need to "conclude" negotiations with our allies before the Foreign Secretary of the UK can say what the UK's objectives are - it is entirely appropriate and diplomatic for the UK's top diplomat to be diplomatically saying in a keynote speech the UK's objectives. That is how Foreign Secretary's have conducted diplomacy for a long time before Truss too.
If you object to the UK's objectives as you don't want Russia to lose the war, that's a different matter.
and feel free to white feather @Dura_Ace for posting it. Almost impossible to accept it is not satirical.
If they want to go nuclear, then fine, that's their choice and if they do fire their nukes we must fire ours too and annihilate them and hope we can intercept as many of their weapons as we can.
Its not in my control whether they want to go nuclear or not. All we can decide is what do we want to do.
So what do you want to do? Do you want to support Ukraine all the way so that it can defeat Russia conventionally and see all Russian forces removed from all of Ukraine including all of Donbas and Crimea?
Or do you want to say to Ukraine "sorry we're afraid of Vlad's nukes" and tell them they're on their own?
The British government seem to have opted for option 1, I am glad for that and back that 100%. Do you, yes or no?
Forceful
But you left out a bit. It's Do you, yes or no? Yes or no? YES OR NO?
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
This isn't an action movie. If Putin wants to press the button, he can. All we can control is what do we want to do? Do we want to ensure we will retaliate in full if he does? Do we want to sell him the world if he doesn't?
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
Of course being a bit sleazy isn't a "heinous crime", maybe you think someone has been sentenced to life imprisonment for this reported incident? But people should be able to go to work without having to put up with unwelcome sexual comments. And if someone (especially in a position of authority) humiliates a colleague in front of others it's actually quite shitty even if they are so insensitive to others that they imagine they are making a "compliment", and they should be called out on it, in my opinion.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
Of course being a bit sleazy isn't a "heinous crime", maybe you think someone has been sentenced to life imprisonment for this reported incident? But people should be able to go to work without having to put up with unwelcome sexual comments. And if someone (especially in a position of authority) humiliates a colleague in front of others it's actually quite shitty even if they are so insensitive to others that they imagine they are making a "compliment", and they should be called out on it, in my opinion.
More to the point is that when the vast majority of the banter is in one direction, and has been pretty well forever, there's a problem.
Meanwhile in Russia war fever takes hold. Reminds me of poppy season in Wigan.
The legend "Тамбовский колхозник" means (member of) the Tambovsky Collective which I assume was written on the side of a Great Patriotic War T-34. Excellent attention to detail.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
I wonder if there's a negative correlation between having a daughter and being sexist. Ditto with sisters. You'd think so, wouldn't you, but I can't say I've noticed one.
As for sexist workplace banter it's all bad but there's a spectrum ranging from cringe to hardcore misogyny. This spectrum is well illustrated in the programme The Office with the 3 characters of Brent, Gareth and 'Finchy'.
Meanwhile in Russia war fever takes hold. Reminds me of poppy season in Wigan.
The legend "Тамбовский колхозник" means (member of) the Tambovsky Collective which I assume was written on the side of a Great Patriotic War T-34. Excellent attention to detail.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
If anyone in my team made such a comment within my hearing or reported to me later, I would tell them it was not acceptable. If I made such a comment, I would expect to be told the same. I wouldn't expect it to go further than that in the first instance, assuming it wan't repeated.
I really cannot imagine such a thing happening within my workplace and I would be shocked, frankly, if it did.
Someone posted the Harry Enfield Yorkshireman advertising consultant sketch the other day, it's at that level (he does, I think, in the sketch comment to the woman present that she's attractive).
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Since you don't seem willing to answer a simple question, what do you think the UK's strategic primary objective should be?
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders? Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
I wonder if there's a negative correlation between having a daughter and being sexist. Ditto with sisters. You'd think so, wouldn't you, but I can't say I've noticed one.
As for sexist workplace banter it's all bad but there's a spectrum ranging from cringe to hardcore misogyny. This spectrum is well illustrated in the programme The Office with the 3 characters of Brent, Gareth and 'Finchy'.
This "speaking as a father of girls" shtick puts me slightly in mind of "Is this a book you would want your wives and servants to read?" As a father of boys, I would have thought it made not an iota of difference. It certainly bloody shouldn't.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
The Japanese in 1941 were orders of magnitude in scale further away from understanding Western thinking than Russia in 2021, and they had no knowledge that the US would be able to obliterate their cities. The moment it became apparent the US had multiple nukes, the religious fervored regime unconditionally surrendered.
And shill is a common word in the English language. The only reason you are shrieking about it is because you know how accurately ot describes you. You have been pushing the talking point most favourable to Russia since the war began. If the West had followed your advice, Putin would be inflicting a reign of terror on Kyiv and Lviv as we speak.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Since you don't seem willing to answer a simple question, what do you think the UK's strategic primary objective should be?
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders? Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
Or something else?
A Greater Russian Empire stretching from Vladivostok to Galway, with the USA a smouldering nuclear wasteland.
Or, aim for an outcome as close as possible to Russia being 100% expelled from Ukraine, but taking a mature and realistic account of the very grave dangers involved. Not schoolboy story "bullies always back down," not "Do you want to live for ever, look how brave I am" fighting talk.
One or the other.
Questions for you: do you think the Cuban missile crisis was a moment of great danger?
Are we currently in more, less or about the same danger?
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Meanwhile in Russia war fever takes hold. Reminds me of poppy season in Wigan.
The legend "Тамбовский колхозник" means (member of) the Tambovsky Collective which I assume was written on the side of a Great Patriotic War T-34. Excellent attention to detail.
You sure that's not part of a reserve division ?
Hmmmm
Commanders position is both exposed and has poor visibility. Very little protection against attack by modern weapons.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Since you don't seem willing to answer a simple question, what do you think the UK's strategic primary objective should be?
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders? Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
Or something else?
A Greater Russian Empire stretching from Vladivostok to Galway, with the USA a smouldering nuclear wasteland.
Or, aim for an outcome as close as possible to Russia being 100% expelled from Ukraine, but taking a mature and realistic account of the very grave dangers involved. Not schoolboy story "bullies always back down," not "Do you want to live for ever, look how brave I am" fighting talk.
One or the other.
Questions for you: do you think the Cuban missile crisis was a moment of great danger?
Are we currently in more, less or about the same danger?
Yes.
About the same.
Standing up to bullies isn't schoolboy, not when an attempted bully is literally invading countries right now, standing up to him is entirely appropriate.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Well done Priti Patel and the Tory govt. They were warned as far back as Mid Feb this would happen and they stood idly by.
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
You are assuming the government is against these people. It isn't. In some respects, they serve the government's agenda, and that is why they are treated as they are.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
I know I may be wrong but I can't see any way that Putin can get a "win" out of this. The timeframe is going to be important in terms of the danger of nuclear escalation but also the imponderables of internal Russian politics and plots. Potential plotters of every hue, the ambitious and simply those wanting to survive likely purges must surely be making their calculations. That's not to mention regional manoeuvrings. Lots of potential danger plus some opportunity for a better future eventually.
I agree that there is a (hopefully remote) chance of nuclear escalation but what do those opposing the current UK western stance want to do instead? Proposing caving or lessening support would weaken NATO (our counter-threat) and doesn't take into account the agency of Ukraine and other countries such as Poland who will continue to resist even if UK or NATO support was lessened. We do have leverage with Ukraine so some sort of tactical armistice may need to happen and be encouraged but I think that more likely is decisive reverse for Russia and we need to manage that dangerous and potentially very dynamic situation. Putin has undoubtably made a gigantic blunder but it is the outcome of his modus operandi and deep Russian social forces I'm afraid.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
I wonder if there's a negative correlation between having a daughter and being sexist. Ditto with sisters. You'd think so, wouldn't you, but I can't say I've noticed one.
As for sexist workplace banter it's all bad but there's a spectrum ranging from cringe to hardcore misogyny. This spectrum is well illustrated in the programme The Office with the 3 characters of Brent, Gareth and 'Finchy'.
This "speaking as a father of girls" shtick puts me slightly in mind of "Is this a book you would want your wives and servants to read?" As a father of boys, I would have thought it made not an iota of difference. It certainly bloody shouldn't.
People can certainly compartmentalise. Harvey Weinstein has 4 daughters.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
The Japanese in 1941 were orders of magnitude in scale further away from understanding Western thinking than Russia in 2021, and they had no knowledge that the US would be able to obliterate their cities. The moment it became apparent the US had multiple nukes, the religious fervored regime unconditionally surrendered.
And shill is a common word in the English language. The only reason you are shrieking about it is because you know how accurately ot describes you. You have been pushing the talking point most favourable to Russia since the war began. If the West had followed your advice, Putin would be inflicting a reign of terror on Kyiv and Lviv as we speak.
I see you took me up on the "touched a nerve" suggestion. Prick. Out of interest, and given that you think you know what "shill" means, do you think I am actually receiving cash money for this? What's my motive?
You are clearly a deeply stupid man, able to discount the wall of evidence from Russian media, western commentators, posters here with detailed local knowledge, of the serious danger that Russia is prepared to go nuclear, on the basis of some idiot cunning, mouth breathing nonsense about how bullies are always cowards.
Just to be clear, I don't mind your being stupid, why would I? It is not my job to police the internet for stupidity. It is the sheer idiot cunning nastiness of "shill" which makes you a seriously contemptible piece of shit.
Go on, play the "touched a nerve" card again. Prat.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
Meanwhile in Russia war fever takes hold. Reminds me of poppy season in Wigan.
The legend "Тамбовский колхозник" means (member of) the Tambovsky Collective which I assume was written on the side of a Great Patriotic War T-34. Excellent attention to detail.
You sure that's not part of a reserve division ?
Hmmmm
Commanders position is both exposed and has poor visibility. Very little protection against attack by modern weapons.
No, that's a front line Russian tank.
But at least they've got infantry support, and a handy means to recover the tank if it runs out of fuel.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Well done Priti Patel and the Tory govt. They were warned as far back as Mid Feb this would happen and they stood idly by.
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
You are assuming the government is against these people. It isn't. In some respects, they serve the government's agenda, and that is why they are treated as they are.
Yes, that is perfectly feasible. They are useful idiots to the govt as Priti Patel has already used Just Stop Oil protests as a stick to beat Labour with for not supporting her draconian anti protest legislation
One of Germany's biggest energy firms has said it is preparing to buy Russian gas using a payment system that critics say will undermine EU sanctions. Uniper says it will pay in euros which will be converted into roubles, meeting a Kremlin demand for all transactions to be made in the Russian currency.
Other European energy firms are reportedly preparing to do the same amid concerns about supply cuts.
As a father to two girls, I'd rather they grow up into a world where they can go to work without people making unwanted discussions who does and does not want to sleep with them.
'Banter' can be for pubs etc where if you're a douche nobody has to hang out with you, not the workplace.
I wonder if there's a negative correlation between having a daughter and being sexist. Ditto with sisters. You'd think so, wouldn't you, but I can't say I've noticed one.
As for sexist workplace banter it's all bad but there's a spectrum ranging from cringe to hardcore misogyny. This spectrum is well illustrated in the programme The Office with the 3 characters of Brent, Gareth and 'Finchy'.
This "speaking as a father of girls" shtick puts me slightly in mind of "Is this a book you would want your wives and servants to read?" As a father of boys, I would have thought it made not an iota of difference. It certainly bloody shouldn't.
Mervyn Griffith-Jones, I was surprised and slightly amused to hear, was one of the prosecuting counsel at Nuremberg. My only experience of him being his famous, self-defeating quote, I hadn't thought much about his life otherwise. Almost a shame that's what he's remembered for. You help convict a bunch of Nazis, but it's the out of touch quote you're remembered for.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Since you don't seem willing to answer a simple question, what do you think the UK's strategic primary objective should be?
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders? Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
Or something else?
A Greater Russian Empire stretching from Vladivostok to Galway, with the USA a smouldering nuclear wasteland.
Or, aim for an outcome as close as possible to Russia being 100% expelled from Ukraine, but taking a mature and realistic account of the very grave dangers involved. Not schoolboy story "bullies always back down," not "Do you want to live for ever, look how brave I am" fighting talk.
One or the other.
Questions for you: do you think the Cuban missile crisis was a moment of great danger?
Are we currently in more, less or about the same danger?
Yes.
About the same.
Standing up to bullies isn't schoolboy, not when an attempted bully is literally invading countries right now, standing up to him is entirely appropriate.
Shit, there is no getting through to you, is there? What is schoolboy, is thinking that standing up to bullies is a cost free option, or that the cost is trivial (they can nuke us if they want) or that saying they can nuke us if they want is an indication of personal courage.
It's like your housebuilding rants. I couldn't be more on the same page as you if I tried: there is a fundamental obligation to provide decent housing for everybody. You take pointing out that this has its downsides (the destruction of what very little remains of the English countryside) as arguing against it. It isn't.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
For those who think that caving in and letting Russia take what they want of Ukraine is the best option:
Do you agree that Putin wants control over eastern Europe? If not, why not?
If you really think Putin is mad enough to use nuclear weapons if he does not get his way over Ukraine, why do you think he'll be sane enough not to use that trick (which will have worked) over anything else he fancies?
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Well done Priti Patel and the Tory govt. They were warned as far back as Mid Feb this would happen and they stood idly by.
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
You are assuming the government is against these people. It isn't. In some respects, they serve the government's agenda, and that is why they are treated as they are.
Yes, that is perfectly feasible. They are useful idiots to the govt as Priti Patel has already used Just Stop Oil protests as a stick to beat Labour with for not supporting her draconian anti protest legislation
In green agenda terms, you could argue these protesters are the IRA to the Johnsons' Sinn Fein.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
And here's the thing: if the only options are (a) Russia wins, (b) Russia nukes the West - then the only logical policy is to nuke Russia first.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
Talking of the Insulate Britain lot and these eco loons. This bunch glued themselves to benches at a magistrates court the other day and have deemed all courts to be legitimate sites of "civil non violent resistance"
One of Germany's biggest energy firms has said it is preparing to buy Russian gas using a payment system that critics say will undermine EU sanctions. Uniper says it will pay in euros which will be converted into roubles, meeting a Kremlin demand for all transactions to be made in the Russian currency.
Other European energy firms are reportedly preparing to do the same amid concerns about supply cuts.
The last I was aware of, the EuCo jungle telegraph was saying that that would perhaps be acceptable. What's changed?
However, Moscow's decree does not necessarily prevent a payment process that would comply with EU sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict, the Commission said.
Brussels said in the document that there were options that could allow companies to continue lawfully paying for gas.
"EU companies can ask their Russian counterparts to fulfil their contractual obligations in the same manner as before the adoption of the decree, i.e. by depositing the due amount in euros or dollars," the document said.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Well done Priti Patel and the Tory govt. They were warned as far back as Mid Feb this would happen and they stood idly by.
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
You are assuming the government is against these people. It isn't. In some respects, they serve the government's agenda, and that is why they are treated as they are.
Yes, that is perfectly feasible. They are useful idiots to the govt as Priti Patel has already used Just Stop Oil protests as a stick to beat Labour with for not supporting her draconian anti protest legislation
In green agenda terms, you could argue these protesters are the IRA to the Johnsons' Sinn Fein.
You could, maybe. I find it hard to imagine anyone else attempting that argument.
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
I saw a rant on facebook last night from an acquaintance of mine who is a known buffoon about the injustice if Musk acquiring Twitter. Concluded with 'makes me glad I don't have it account'. Which weakened his point rather.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I also think 2 *is* 3. It doesn't end there.
That's a good point. The Ukrainians will continue to arm for their own self-defence (reasonably so), and you can be very sure that Russia will arm the areas of land it as stolen in the same way. At *best* it would be a Korean stalemate. Demilitarisation of Ukraine is a non-starter for any negotiated (as opposed to enforced) pace treaty.
But the Russian regime have made it very clear what they want, and it is not just those small parts of Ukraine; or even Ukraine as a whole. Their regime is corrupt, fascist and imperialist; and the easiest way of keeping their people in line is to create an enemy. In the same way the Nazis made a false enemy of the Jews (and to a lesser extent other races), so the Russian regime will need to create an external enemy, a real of imagined threat.
In fact, it's what they're already doing.
It is not a recipe for long-term peace. Or perhaps even short-term.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
The Japanese in 1941 were orders of magnitude in scale further away from understanding Western thinking than Russia in 2021, and they had no knowledge that the US would be able to obliterate their cities. The moment it became apparent the US had multiple nukes, the religious fervored regime unconditionally surrendered.
The cabinet was split and the defenders of the absolute power of the emperor attempted a coup d'etat involving the imprisonment of the emperor, so it's probably not safe to assume everyone is sane in a situation like this.
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
I saw a rant on facebook last night from an acquaintance of mine who is a known buffoon about the injustice if Musk acquiring Twitter. Concluded with 'makes me glad I don't have it account'. Which weakened his point rather.
And yet this person *does* have a Facebook account. The company actively run by a character at least 2.7 times as appalling as Musk.
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
I saw a rant on facebook last night from an acquaintance of mine who is a known buffoon about the injustice if Musk acquiring Twitter. Concluded with 'makes me glad I don't have it account'. Which weakened his point rather.
The loony tunes seem to really think Musk is some alt-right Nazi adjacent type, and that's just those that work at twitter...when actually what is he saying.
User authentication, concentration on spam bot removal, ...
Seems increasingly like he sees value in this i.e. there is money to be made. Know you users better, get rid of the spam, try to increase the active customer base, add better services..
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
Zelensky had already signified he could accept an independent Crimea. Just not a Russian one.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
I don't agree with the notion that if Putin is not stopped at Odesa, then Warsaw, Hampstead and Mansfield Woodhouse are next.
Odesa, or the Crimea, or Kyiv have an emotional resonance to Russians (not just Putin) that Mansfield Woodhouse does not
For those who think that caving in and letting Russia take what they want of Ukraine is the best option...
Does anyone think that?
Yes, there are some people (even on this thread) who haven't learned the lesson of 1930s appeasement and who are quite happy to try the same thing again.
So if worker says to other worker . Everyone here thinks you’re incredibly attractive and sexy should the person view that as offensive . Or take it as a compliment , attractiveness helps you get on. This is a fact backed up by research.
We’re in danger of turning office spaces into sterile places where even light hearted banter is now viewed as some heinous crime .
There seems to be a lot of faux outrage in here!
Of course being a bit sleazy isn't a "heinous crime", maybe you think someone has been sentenced to life imprisonment for this reported incident? But people should be able to go to work without having to put up with unwelcome sexual comments. And if someone (especially in a position of authority) humiliates a colleague in front of others it's actually quite shitty even if they are so insensitive to others that they imagine they are making a "compliment", and they should be called out on it, in my opinion.
More to the point is that when the vast majority of the banter is in one direction, and has been pretty well forever, there's a problem.
It's quite interesting that the DM and the Tories don't seem to have realised that they were actually accusing Ms Rayner of a form of serious sexual harassment of Mr Johnson, aimed at disrupting the functioning of the work ongoing at the time. In any genuine workplace, that would mean being lucky to get off with just a very uncomfortable interview with dept head, HR and union rep all present . I wonder if it's because they are so used to giving it in the other direction, in the way you suggest?
Though that's not to suggest that it is Tory males who are a problem alone.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
I don't agree with the notion that if Putin is not stopped at Odesa, then Warsaw, Hampstead and Mansfield Woodhouse are next.
Odesa, or the Crimea, or Kyiv have an emotional resonance to Russians (not just Putin) that Mansfield Woodhouse does not
Strange debates on PB today. Quite surprised by the credibility given to a 'newspaper' controlled by a former KGB Officer whom we are repeatedly told has fatally compromised the Govt by association.
For anyone who wants to actually listen to the Liz Truss speech, rather than chat off the back off media-picked cherries, here's the video
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
I don't agree with the notion that if Putin is not stopped at Odesa, then Warsaw, Hampstead and Mansfield Woodhouse are next.
Odesa, or the Crimea, or Kyiv have an emotional resonance to Russians (not just Putin) that Mansfield Woodhouse does not
I don't think you have necessarily selected Putin's top targets after Ukraine, for rhetorical effect. Greater Russia is definitely a thing and includes at least the Baltics, Transnistria and assorted former Soviet Republics.
Lock the f##kers up...its the same small group of eco-fascists every time. But more than likely we will get an idiot judge again saying well I agree with your campaign. Better still send them Russia to protest again the source.
Well done Priti Patel and the Tory govt. They were warned as far back as Mid Feb this would happen and they stood idly by.
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
You are assuming the government is against these people. It isn't. In some respects, they serve the government's agenda, and that is why they are treated as they are.
Yes, that is perfectly feasible. They are useful idiots to the govt as Priti Patel has already used Just Stop Oil protests as a stick to beat Labour with for not supporting her draconian anti protest legislation
In green agenda terms, you could argue these protesters are the IRA to the Johnsons' Sinn Fein.
You could, maybe. I find it hard to imagine anyone else attempting that argument.
Really? The protestors and the Johnsons have the same aim. Net zero and zero hydrocarbon use.
Not sure if anyone has made much comment on the thread header since all the talk seems to be of Ukraine.
But I think Mike's comments are a little bit misleading. He appears to be comparing the prospective results of this year's locals with those of last years when he should be comparing them with the last time these seats were fought which was in 2018. It is important because these seats are more naturally anti Tory leaning.
So Mike is quoting last year's local results of 40/30/15/15
when the last time these seats were fought the results were actually 35/35/16/14
This is the base line comparison we should be working from.
I would love to see the Tories get a good smacking in these elections in the hope it results in a challenge to Johnson but we have to be making accurate comparisons rather than false ones.
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
I saw a rant on facebook last night from an acquaintance of mine who is a known buffoon about the injustice if Musk acquiring Twitter. Concluded with 'makes me glad I don't have it account'. Which weakened his point rather.
And yet this person *does* have a Facebook account. The company actively run by a character at least 2.7 times as appalling as Musk.
There is a weird cognitive dissonance going on by some. Musk the most evil man in the world. while using Insta, Whatsapp, TikTok on my iPhone. Meta, Apple and Google, they are the good guys...
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
How do you avoid the *next* war, if Putin thinks he has won this one?
I don't agree with the notion that if Putin is not stopped at Odesa, then Warsaw, Hampstead and Mansfield Woodhouse are next.
Odesa, or the Crimea, or Kyiv have an emotional resonance to Russians (not just Putin) that Mansfield Woodhouse does not
I think the evidence of recent history is against you.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
The Japanese in 1941 were orders of magnitude in scale further away from understanding Western thinking than Russia in 2021, and they had no knowledge that the US would be able to obliterate their cities. The moment it became apparent the US had multiple nukes, the religious fervored regime unconditionally surrendered.
And shill is a common word in the English language. The only reason you are shrieking about it is because you know how accurately ot describes you. You have been pushing the talking point most favourable to Russia since the war began. If the West had followed your advice, Putin would be inflicting a reign of terror on Kyiv and Lviv as we speak.
I see you took me up on the "touched a nerve" suggestion. Prick. Out of interest, and given that you think you know what "shill" means, do you think I am actually receiving cash money for this? What's my motive?
You are clearly a deeply stupid man, able to discount the wall of evidence from Russian media, western commentators, posters here with detailed local knowledge, of the serious danger that Russia is prepared to go nuclear, on the basis of some idiot cunning, mouth breathing nonsense about how bullies are always cowards.
Just to be clear, I don't mind your being stupid, why would I? It is not my job to police the internet for stupidity. It is the sheer idiot cunning nastiness of "shill" which makes you a seriously contemptible piece of shit.
Go on, play the "touched a nerve" card again. Prat.
"How dare you imply I am getting angry at called out, as I obviously display anger at being called out."
I have no idea what your personal interest is in pushing Russian narratives every step of the way. There are certainly plenty of useful idiots who shill for Russia without a penny of payment, like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage. Whether you are paid or not is irrelevant to the fact that you are an obvious shill for a war criminal that is terrorizing and entire country.
For those who think that caving in and letting Russia take what they want of Ukraine is the best option...
Does anyone think that?
Yes, there are some people (even on this thread) who haven't learned the lesson of 1930s appeasement and who are quite happy to try the same thing again.
+1 on the too stupid to read this blog let alone post on it list
Not sure if anyone has made much comment on the thread header since all the talk seems to be of Ukraine.
But I think Mike's comments are a little bit misleading. He appears to be comparing the prospective results of this year's locals with those of last years when he should be comparing them with the last time these seats were fought which was in 2018. It is important because these seats are more naturally anti Tory leaning.
So Mike is quoting last year's local results of 40/30/15/15
when the last time these seats were fought the results were actually 35/35/16/14
This is the base line comparison we should be working from.
I would love to see the Tories get a good smacking in these elections in the hope it results in a challenge to Johnson but we have to be making accurate comparisons rather than false ones.
Does the NEVS not take that into account? I've never looked into the methodology, but I'd always assumed that was the point - to, in theory, at least, be able to compare local election results on different seats year to year.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
The Japanese in 1941 were orders of magnitude in scale further away from understanding Western thinking than Russia in 2021, and they had no knowledge that the US would be able to obliterate their cities. The moment it became apparent the US had multiple nukes, the religious fervored regime unconditionally surrendered.
And shill is a common word in the English language. The only reason you are shrieking about it is because you know how accurately ot describes you. You have been pushing the talking point most favourable to Russia since the war began. If the West had followed your advice, Putin would be inflicting a reign of terror on Kyiv and Lviv as we speak.
I see you took me up on the "touched a nerve" suggestion. Prick. Out of interest, and given that you think you know what "shill" means, do you think I am actually receiving cash money for this? What's my motive?
You are clearly a deeply stupid man, able to discount the wall of evidence from Russian media, western commentators, posters here with detailed local knowledge, of the serious danger that Russia is prepared to go nuclear, on the basis of some idiot cunning, mouth breathing nonsense about how bullies are always cowards.
Just to be clear, I don't mind your being stupid, why would I? It is not my job to police the internet for stupidity. It is the sheer idiot cunning nastiness of "shill" which makes you a seriously contemptible piece of shit.
Go on, play the "touched a nerve" card again. Prat.
"How dare you imply I am getting angry at called out, as I obviously display anger at being called out."
I have no idea what your personal interest is in pushing Russian narratives every step of the way. There are certainly plenty of useful idiots who shill for Russia without a penny of payment, like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage. Whether you are paid or not is irrelevant to the fact that you are an obvious shill for a war criminal that is terrorizing and entire country.
Well done for illustrating the point that stupidity, pushed far enough along, becomes a moral fault.
For those who think that caving in and letting Russia take what they want of Ukraine is the best option...
Does anyone think that?
Yes, there are some people (even on this thread) who haven't learned the lesson of 1930s appeasement and who are quite happy to try the same thing again.
+1 on the too stupid to read this blog let alone post on it list
Who, on this thread, has said that? Links please.
"Too stupid" is not realising what the post you quoted actually says.
But then, you must realise you're on the back foot because you've started throwing insults around.
Not sure if anyone has made much comment on the thread header since all the talk seems to be of Ukraine.
But I think Mike's comments are a little bit misleading. He appears to be comparing the prospective results of this year's locals with those of last years when he should be comparing them with the last time these seats were fought which was in 2018. It is important because these seats are more naturally anti Tory leaning.
So Mike is quoting last year's local results of 40/30/15/15
when the last time these seats were fought the results were actually 35/35/16/14
This is the base line comparison we should be working from.
I would love to see the Tories get a good smacking in these elections in the hope it results in a challenge to Johnson but we have to be making accurate comparisons rather than false ones.
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Here are the options.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Curious how Ukranian, and indeed Russian agency is pretty well absent in most of your analysis. As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
I think it is vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine could retake Crimea without it ending in nuclear war.
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
Can you outline what you think the precise trigger for a nuclear strike would be and against whom? Ukraine has already hit targets inside Russia without being nuked, and Russia has already been forced to retreat without nuking anyone.
I know the Grudaridan aren't known for accuracy and figures...but the likes of Jezza losing 1000 twitters followers from an account with 2.5m or Michelle Obama losing 20k on a 25m follower account is just natural churn and says nothing about if there are mass exodus of left leaning users.
I saw a rant on facebook last night from an acquaintance of mine who is a known buffoon about the injustice if Musk acquiring Twitter. Concluded with 'makes me glad I don't have it account'. Which weakened his point rather.
And yet this person *does* have a Facebook account. The company actively run by a character at least 2.7 times as appalling as Musk.
There is a weird cognitive dissonance going on by some. Musk the most evil man in the world. while using Insta, Whatsapp, TikTok on my iPhone. Meta, Apple and Google, they are the good guys...
My experience is that people don't realise who owns these properties, and, when it comes down to it, don't care.
For those who think that caving in and letting Russia take what they want of Ukraine is the best option...
Does anyone think that?
Yes, there are some people (even on this thread) who haven't learned the lesson of 1930s appeasement and who are quite happy to try the same thing again.
+1 on the too stupid to read this blog let alone post on it list
Who, on this thread, has said that? Links please.
"Too stupid" is not realising what the post you quoted actually says.
But then, you must realise you're on the back foot because you've started throwing insults around.
Link, please, to a post on this thread from one of the people who haven't learned the lesson of 1930s appeasement and who are quite happy to try the same thing again. How hard can this be?
As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .
All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .
This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.
The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.
By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.
This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.
In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.
If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
Have you actually created that graph, or are you making up rubbish?
Russia retreated from lots of occupied territory in Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts after losing the battle for Kyiv. They were defeated in their attempt to cross the Southern Bug river and forced to retreat from Mykolaiv oblast.
Over the last couple of weeks the Russians have made modest gains in the vicinity of Izium and Severodonetsk, but they have suffered territorial losses NW and E of Kharkiv and in Kherson oblast west of the Dniepr.
So my best guess is that your graph would have shown a positive gradient initially, then a negative gradient and recently very little change.
You must know this, so why make such an absurd and risible point?
Putin's (now) stated aims are control of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a land corridor to Crimea.
Control of Luhansk seems to be almost there (source BBC) Control of Donetsk, say 50 per cent done (source BBC) Land Corridor to Crime, Done.
Sure, Russia has had reverses, and Russia clearly underestimated the scale of the task and thought they would be greeted as saviours.
You seem to be thinking of the war in terms of winners and losers.
This war has only losers, and Ukraine is losing more than Russia. Because the war is being fought in Ukraine.
Not merely has Ukraine lost territory, but as the war goes on, more and more Ukrainian towns are being destroyed.
It becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to.
Who the fuck in their right minds is ever going to return to Mariupol ? There is nothing left to go back to.
Over a million people live in Hiroshima and over 400k people live in Nagasaki.
If people are willing to live there, there will be people willing to return to Mariupol when its rebuilt.
Quite right.
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
The usual Russian shills continuing to make ridiculous scare mongering. Putin believes in the restoration of Russian greatness. He isn't going to do something that causes the annihilation of Russia. Stories on Russian TV are just designed to amp up the perceived threat among gullible Westerners. They aren't the real inner thoughts of the siloviki regime.
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
Dean Acheson, July 1941 “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country”.
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Since you don't seem willing to answer a simple question, what do you think the UK's strategic primary objective should be?
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders? Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
Or something else?
A Greater Russian Empire stretching from Vladivostok to Galway, with the USA a smouldering nuclear wasteland.
Or, aim for an outcome as close as possible to Russia being 100% expelled from Ukraine, but taking a mature and realistic account of the very grave dangers involved. Not schoolboy story "bullies always back down," not "Do you want to live for ever, look how brave I am" fighting talk.
One or the other.
Questions for you: do you think the Cuban missile crisis was a moment of great danger?
Are we currently in more, less or about the same danger?
Yes.
About the same.
Standing up to bullies isn't schoolboy, not when an attempted bully is literally invading countries right now, standing up to him is entirely appropriate.
Shit, there is no getting through to you, is there? What is schoolboy, is thinking that standing up to bullies is a cost free option, or that the cost is trivial (they can nuke us if they want) or that saying they can nuke us if they want is an indication of personal courage.
It's like your housebuilding rants. I couldn't be more on the same page as you if I tried: there is a fundamental obligation to provide decent housing for everybody. You take pointing out that this has its downsides (the destruction of what very little remains of the English countryside) as arguing against it. It isn't.
Except I've never said that anything is cost-free, trivial or personal courage so you're tilting at windmills.
If they want to nuke us that isn't trivial but that is their choice not ours. The fact that I accept that is out of our control isn't trivialising it, its just being realistic.
I'm not getting into a housing discussion today, but again you're making your own windmills there.
Comments
Food for thought for the bedwetting ninnies who have a problem with a few Mton airbursts over London, too. Minge monkeys.
Its not in my control whether they want to go nuclear or not. All we can decide is what do we want to do.
So what do you want to do? Do you want to support Ukraine all the way so that it can defeat Russia conventionally and see all Russian forces removed from all of Ukraine including all of Donbas and Crimea?
Or do you want to say to Ukraine "sorry we're afraid of Vlad's nukes" and tell them they're on their own?
The British government seem to have opted for option 1, I am glad for that and back that 100%. Do you, yes or no?
But you left out a bit. It's Do you, yes or no? Yes or no? YES OR NO?
What do you propose we actually do?
Also, the idea they wouldn't continue to make these threats if they took the entirety of Ukraine and were halfway through their invasion of Poland is ridiculous.
The legend "Тамбовский колхозник" means (member of) the Tambovsky Collective which I assume was written on the side of a Great Patriotic War T-34. Excellent attention to detail.
Quite extraordinary for German politics how clearly Habeck has been communicating in this crisis and explaining fraught and complex issues.
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1519649694523269122
Note this is the Vice Chancellor explaining why he supports the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine.
I hope it proves correct.
https://twitter.com/dmartinezer/status/1519345098911371269
As for sexist workplace banter it's all bad but there's a spectrum ranging from cringe to hardcore misogyny. This spectrum is well illustrated in the programme The Office with the 3 characters of Brent, Gareth and 'Finchy'.
I really cannot imagine such a thing happening within my workplace and I would be shocked, frankly, if it did.
Someone posted the Harry Enfield Yorkshireman advertising consultant sketch the other day, it's at that level (he does, I think, in the sketch comment to the woman present that she's attractive).
What in the name of God makes you think that there are "Russian shills" on this forum or if there are that I am one of them? "Shill" is a giveaway, it's US internet speak and you are one of those unbelievable arseholes who see what the big boys say and think it's cool and copy it.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you also alter other peoples' posts with strikethroughs and write FTFY, don't you? Clever, that.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you are incapable of deriving any benefit from reading this website or making any useful contribution to it.
If you are at a loss what to say next, try saying "I seem to have touched a nerve," which would put to bed once and for all the debate over your intelligence.
The usual Russian shills FFS
Should it be to see Ukraine victorious and Russia repelled back to its own borders?
Should it be to give Russia whatever they want so that we avoid a nuclear apocalypse?
Or something else?
And shill is a common word in the English language. The only reason you are shrieking about it is because you know how accurately ot describes you. You have been pushing the talking point most favourable to Russia since the war began. If the West had followed your advice, Putin would be inflicting a reign of terror on Kyiv and Lviv as we speak.
all 40 pumps at Cobham M25 have just been destroyed earlier today
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1519640488869040132?s=20&t=-mIZ1bL7KRU94yIY1ekO0A
What a clown
Or, aim for an outcome as close as possible to Russia being 100% expelled from Ukraine, but taking a mature and realistic account of the very grave dangers involved. Not schoolboy story "bullies always back down," not "Do you want to live for ever, look how brave I am" fighting talk.
One or the other.
Questions for you: do you think the Cuban missile crisis was a moment of great danger?
Are we currently in more, less or about the same danger?
The pumps are hardly destroyed though, they are damaged. They will be repairable.
Sunak is proposing fining oil and gas companies for not investing and producing more of commodities his own government is committed to phasing out.
Commanders position is both exposed and has poor visibility. Very little protection against attack by modern weapons.
No, that's a front line Russian tank.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61218933
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/28/11/57151891-10762165-image-a-18_1651140468766.jpg
About the same.
Standing up to bullies isn't schoolboy, not when an attempted bully is literally invading countries right now, standing up to him is entirely appropriate.
1. The war ends quickly, as NATO intervenes massively and militarily on the side of Ukraine. That is a super-quick ending, and not just for the war
2. The war ends quickly, as Ukraine cedes some territory for peace. A bad ending, but not cataclysmic.
3. There is no quick end to the War. There is a long, demented war, and Ukraine is slowly demolished. The refugees don't come back and they make their lives elsewhere. Russia will of course suffer as well -- but not as much as Ukraine, as the war is being fought on Ukrainian soil. The West loses interest, it always does. Ultimately, Russia cares more than the West about this patch of land. Eventually, a truce is reached in which Ukraine may or may not cede some territory. A very bad ending, as the timescale is likely years.
4. The pb.com armchairs refill their glasses with single malt and watch hundreds or thousands of miles away as the great battle of Good versus Evil rages. After Good wins, the armchairs return contentedly to their perusal of 'Lord of the Rings'.
Bookmakers odds respectively, 10 %, 20 %, 70 %, 0%.
I agree that there is a (hopefully remote) chance of nuclear escalation but what do those opposing the current UK western stance want to do instead? Proposing caving or lessening support would weaken NATO (our counter-threat) and doesn't take into account the agency of Ukraine and other countries such as Poland who will continue to resist even if UK or NATO support was lessened. We do have leverage with Ukraine so some sort of tactical armistice may need to happen and be encouraged but I think that more likely is decisive reverse for Russia and we need to manage that dangerous and potentially very dynamic situation. Putin has undoubtably made a gigantic blunder but it is the outcome of his modus operandi and deep Russian social forces I'm afraid.
But I prefer rum over malt personally.
Somebody said something very similar when I said Labour would be leading in the polls.
You are clearly a deeply stupid man, able to discount the wall of evidence from Russian media, western commentators, posters here with detailed local knowledge, of the serious danger that Russia is prepared to go nuclear, on the basis of some idiot cunning, mouth breathing nonsense about how bullies are always cowards.
Just to be clear, I don't mind your being stupid, why would I? It is not my job to police the internet for stupidity. It is the sheer idiot cunning nastiness of "shill" which makes you a seriously contemptible piece of shit.
Go on, play the "touched a nerve" card again. Prat.
(just ignore if you'd rather not say)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/28/elon-musk-says-twitter-must-be-politically-neutral-as-some-leftwing-users-quit
Other European energy firms are reportedly preparing to do the same amid concerns about supply cuts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61257846
It's like your housebuilding rants. I couldn't be more on the same page as you if I tried: there is a fundamental obligation to provide decent housing for everybody. You take pointing out that this has its downsides (the destruction of what very little remains of the English countryside) as arguing against it. It isn't.
As is even the possibility of the invasion being defeated and Russia not resorting to nuclear weapons.
Do you agree that Putin wants control over eastern Europe? If not, why not?
If you really think Putin is mad enough to use nuclear weapons if he does not get his way over Ukraine, why do you think he'll be sane enough not to use that trick (which will have worked) over anything else he fancies?
Good old Care in the Community.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/26/insulate-britain-members-disrupt-trial-gluing-hands-court-furniture-diana-warner
However, Moscow's decree does not necessarily prevent a payment process that would comply with EU sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict, the Commission said.
Brussels said in the document that there were options that could allow companies to continue lawfully paying for gas.
"EU companies can ask their Russian counterparts to fulfil their contractual obligations in the same manner as before the adoption of the decree, i.e. by depositing the due amount in euros or dollars," the document said.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-says-gas-payments-may-be-possible-under-russian-roubles-proposal-without-2022-04-22/
Ukraine can probably halt the advance of the invasion without nuclear weapons being used. That would be my option 3.
Unless you agree with @BartholomewRoberts & his startling 96 % odds for option 4, why not provide your own assessment of outcomes and probabilities?
But the Russian regime have made it very clear what they want, and it is not just those small parts of Ukraine; or even Ukraine as a whole. Their regime is corrupt, fascist and imperialist; and the easiest way of keeping their people in line is to create an enemy. In the same way the Nazis made a false enemy of the Jews (and to a lesser extent other races), so the Russian regime will need to create an external enemy, a real of imagined threat.
In fact, it's what they're already doing.
It is not a recipe for long-term peace. Or perhaps even short-term.
User authentication, concentration on spam bot removal, ...
For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519415674111672325?s=20&t=Rd6ufvi56mfaQsrc6vZ9eA
Twitter DMs should have end to end encryption like Signal, so no one can spy on or hack your messages
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519469891455234048?s=20&t=Rd6ufvi56mfaQsrc6vZ9eA
Seems increasingly like he sees value in this i.e. there is money to be made. Know you users better, get rid of the spam, try to increase the active customer base, add better services..
Odesa, or the Crimea, or Kyiv have an emotional resonance to Russians (not just Putin) that Mansfield Woodhouse does not
Though that's not to suggest that it is Tory males who are a problem alone.
Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn are next.
For anyone who wants to actually listen to the Liz Truss speech, rather than chat off the back off media-picked cherries, here's the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4twtS4MpEw
and here's the text
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-mansion-house-speech-at-the-lord-mayors-easter-banquet-the-return-of-geopolitics
It's actually quite an interesting start to thinking about future security, trade and other architecture.
The only thing that divides them is the timing.
Not sure if anyone has made much comment on the thread header since all the talk seems to be of Ukraine.
But I think Mike's comments are a little bit misleading. He appears to be comparing the prospective results of this year's locals with those of last years when he should be comparing them with the last time these seats were fought which was in 2018. It is important because these seats are more naturally anti Tory leaning.
So Mike is quoting last year's local results of 40/30/15/15
when the last time these seats were fought the results were actually 35/35/16/14
This is the base line comparison we should be working from.
I would love to see the Tories get a good smacking in these elections in the hope it results in a challenge to Johnson but we have to be making accurate comparisons rather than false ones.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/28/ftse-100-markets-live-news-russia-oil-gas-energy-bt/
I have no idea what your personal interest is in pushing Russian narratives every step of the way. There are certainly plenty of useful idiots who shill for Russia without a penny of payment, like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage. Whether you are paid or not is irrelevant to the fact that you are an obvious shill for a war criminal that is terrorizing and entire country.
Who, on this thread, has said that? Links please.
But then, you must realise you're on the back foot because you've started throwing insults around.
If they want to nuke us that isn't trivial but that is their choice not ours. The fact that I accept that is out of our control isn't trivialising it, its just being realistic.
I'm not getting into a housing discussion today, but again you're making your own windmills there.