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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
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.
Yes, we can look at the NEV each year, as they take into account which seats are up for election each time. However, when looking at gains and losses, we are comparing against 4 years ago, when the two parties were level-pegging on NEV.
If Labour make gains on the night, then the NEV should show a Labour lead.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
I'd say that the issue there is not Jezzapop losing a few followers or Bamalama losing 300k, but that Twitter Follower counts are 80-90% meaningless, and always have been.
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
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.
May have been mentioned, but this isn't right. The point of NEVS is it is a projection of vote share if ALL of the country had been contested. So it corrects for a set of seats up in a particular year being in more Tory or more Labour areas, and should be comparable year on year. It isn't a simple addition of votes cast on May 5th which as you say would be an issue.
This year it will be "weighted" (if you like) quite heavily to the Tories as a lot of the votes will be in London, Scotland, Birmingham etc. So the Tory NEVS reported will in fact be quite a bit higher than actual vote share if you just add up votes cast for them and divide by total votes cast.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
I'd say that the issue there is not Jezzapop losing a few followers or Bamalama losing 300k, but that Twitter Follower counts are 80-90% meaningless, and always have been.
If Musk gets really serious about bot accounts, there are going to be some serious dents to egos.
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?
Well, if you haven't been reading the thread - including your own contributions...
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?
Well, if you haven't been reading the thread - including your own contributions...
Fail. There are 310 comments on the thread, inc about 10 of mine.
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.
I'm visualising the equivalent for Mrs HYUFD when they eventually spawn.
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?
Well, if you haven't been reading the thread - including your own contributions...
Fail. There are 310 comments on the thread, inc about 10 of mine.
Link.
A link to a specific comment wouldn't accurately reflect the impression given by the totality of a person's contributions, as you well know. So, no, I'm not going to play your game.
US were not that exposed to Russia energy, what explains the Biden recession Putting Trump in power is Biden’s administration pouring fuel into a hot economic situation when they came in in their first year. A lot of governments are one term because of the mistakes on economy they made at very start not mistakes made at end.
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?
It is the war-rampers here like yourself who've been pushing the line that Putin is a crazy, unpredictable lunatic, in a vengeful tailspin over his crumbling regime, and arguing hard against the view that his actions have any sort of predictability or pattern. If you're confident that he won't use nuclear weapons, you're now arguing the opposite.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
You have some very false notions there I think. Our freedom of speech, which started in the 18th century, has its roots in someone forgetting to renew the censorship laws, not due to any sort of revolutionary uprising. That's just one example of the way Britain has evolved into a relatively free and democratic nation, not struggled and suffered its way there.
Most progress comes this way, not out of hardship and sacrifice. We just tend to put up statues to those who suffered and sacrificed and we're taught that nothing good comes without suffering first. Total tosh. There is no inherent benefit in sacrificing our own economy in order to cause economic damage to another country. It is quite simply the stupidest thing that can be imagined.
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.
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
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).
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?
It is the war-rampers here like yourself who've been pushing the line that Putin is a crazy, unpredictable lunatic, in a vengeful tailspin over his crumbling regime, and arguing hard against the view that his actions have any sort of predictability or pattern. If you're confident that he won't use nuclear weapons, you're now arguing the opposite.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
You have some very false notions there I think. Our freedom of speech, which started in the 18th century, has its roots in someone forgetting to renew the censorship laws, not due to any sort of revolutionary uprising. That's just one example of the way Britain has evolved into a relatively free and democratic nation, not struggled and suffered its way there.
Most progress comes this way, not out of hardship and sacrifice. We just tend to put up statues to those who suffered and sacrificed and we're taught that nothing good comes without suffering first. Total tosh. There is no inherent benefit in sacrificing our own economy in order to cause economic damage to another country. It is quite simply the stupidest thing that can be imagined.
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?
Well, if you haven't been reading the thread - including your own contributions...
Fail. There are 310 comments on the thread, inc about 10 of mine.
Link.
A link to a specific comment wouldn't accurately reflect the impression given by the totality of a person's contributions, as you well know. So, no, I'm not going to play your game.
Hahahahahahahaha, there are times when the word "fail" looks obsolete and inadequate
I am sorry you think I insulted you. I would never do that.
Only thing is, over Rishigate there was a splendid auto correct about applications for non dim status, and I looked at your username and thought, I hope he's not holding his breath.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Is there anybody in world politics more ineffective and useless than UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres ?
Liz Truss
I clean up at 100/1 if she succeeds Johnson, but I'd do anything to lose that bet.
Same (not 100/1 but got on at very nice odds). Be happy to lose it.
But you have to admit, Liz Truss looks like a PM and world leader, the styling team have done a FANTASTIC job.
From very far away maybe, but when you look closer, there's something off I think. Like one of those girls who's never learned to put make-up on properly so looks a bit like she's raided her Mum's make up bag. Even her gait and the way she poses just strikes me as a bit wide of the mark. It's unfair because it's not a fashion show and she shouldn't be critiqued for not being a Hollywood female politician. But I do like politicians to look comfortable and 'right' in their skin. It doesn't have anything to do with attractiveness.
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'.
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.
There is no 'Z' on that tank, she must be a traitor to the 'great patriotic special military operation'
p.s. Would be very funny if there was a mum behind pushing her kid on a tracker LOL
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?
Well, if you haven't been reading the thread - including your own contributions...
Fail. There are 310 comments on the thread, inc about 10 of mine.
Link.
A link to a specific comment wouldn't accurately reflect the impression given by the totality of a person's contributions, as you well know. So, no, I'm not going to play your game.
Hahahahahahahaha, there are times when the word "fail" looks obsolete and inadequate
I am sorry you think I insulted you. I would never do that.
Only thing is, over Rishigate there was a splendid auto correct about applications for non dim status, and I looked at your username and thought, I hope he's not holding his breath.
I don't know why you hate me so much (I guess it's because you can't pigeon-hole me and that makes you uncomfortable), but it really would improve your quality of life if you ignored my comments.
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
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'.
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?
It is the war-rampers here like yourself who've been pushing the line that Putin is a crazy, unpredictable lunatic, in a vengeful tailspin over his crumbling regime, and arguing hard against the view that his actions have any sort of predictability or pattern. If you're confident that he won't use nuclear weapons, you're now arguing the opposite.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
You have some very false notions there I think. Our freedom of speech, which started in the 18th century, has its roots in someone forgetting to renew the censorship laws, not due to any sort of revolutionary uprising. That's just one example of the way Britain has evolved into a relatively free and democratic nation, not struggled and suffered its way there.
Most progress comes this way, not out of hardship and sacrifice. We just tend to put up statues to those who suffered and sacrificed and we're taught that nothing good comes without suffering first. Total tosh. There is no inherent benefit in sacrificing our own economy in order to cause economic damage to another country. It is quite simply the stupidest thing that can be imagined.
A great deal of progress comes from hardship and sacrifice.
We are nowhere near sacrificing our economy. We, a very rich country, are taking a minor hit in order to harm a bully.
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'.
I think you've chosen to ignore the highest probability outcome of all: regime change in Moscow.
History suggests that failing military offensives do not continue forever, because the leader of the aggressors often becomes indisposed.
I have been told that Putin is scuttling around between various bunkers and even spending time on a submarine, because there is a very real threat to his mortal existence.
The money in Moscow is pissed off. Very, very pissed off.....
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
Being exceptionally pedantic, but surely the number of people actually living in national parks* is extremely small, so would it be LIPNBY?
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I think it all comes down to the remaining strength, resilience and morale of the Ukraine armed forces, which is so far a very well kept secret. We know they're getting the weapons and ammo but it's hard to know how they are faring on manpower and reinforcements. We know Russian is getting daily attrition but to what extent is Ukraine?
Also depends a bit on the attitude of the populations in the occupied areas. I suspect there is a bit more pro-Russian sentiment in the East and South than we are led to believe, albeit much less than Russia thought. I heard as much yesterday from a colleague who has family and friends in Odesa and Kherson. Will there be resistance, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, or acquiescence?
It is the war-rampers here like yourself who've been pushing the line that Putin is a crazy, unpredictable lunatic, in a vengeful tailspin over his crumbling regime, and arguing hard against the view that his actions have any sort of predictability or pattern. If you're confident that he won't use nuclear weapons, you're now arguing the opposite.
When have I said he's a 'lunatic'?
Some people on here think Putin will use nuclear weapons. I don't think he will; in fact, I think he'd have to be mad to do so. But I don't think he will.
So I'm arguing *against* him being mad.
I'm going to ask this again, as it's fun: do you believe the Dutch report into the MH17 shootdown is accurate and represents the true story of what happened to that flight?
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?
It is the war-rampers here like yourself who've been pushing the line that Putin is a crazy, unpredictable lunatic, in a vengeful tailspin over his crumbling regime, and arguing hard against the view that his actions have any sort of predictability or pattern. If you're confident that he won't use nuclear weapons, you're now arguing the opposite.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
You have some very false notions there I think. Our freedom of speech, which started in the 18th century, has its roots in someone forgetting to renew the censorship laws, not due to any sort of revolutionary uprising. That's just one example of the way Britain has evolved into a relatively free and democratic nation, not struggled and suffered its way there.
Most progress comes this way, not out of hardship and sacrifice. We just tend to put up statues to those who suffered and sacrificed and we're taught that nothing good comes without suffering first. Total tosh. There is no inherent benefit in sacrificing our own economy in order to cause economic damage to another country. It is quite simply the stupidest thing that can be imagined.
A great deal of progress comes from hardship and sacrifice.
We are nowhere near sacrificing our economy. We, a very rich country, are taking a minor hit in order to harm a bully.
Progress comes when the hardship and sacrifice stop, and everyone takes a breath and moves on from the silliness.
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.
There is no 'Z' on that tank, she must be a traitor to the 'great patriotic special military operation'
p.s. Would be very funny if there was a mum behind pushing her kid on a tracker LOL
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
Being exceptionally pedantic, but surely the number of people actually living in national parks* is extremely small, so would it be LIPNBY?
* Wait, does the UK actually have national parks?
Och yes. Brecon Beacons, Eryri/Snowdonia, Peak District, LL and the Trossachs, etc.
But not in the US sense (which IIRC is more like a National Nature Reserve in the UK) - more of a planning control thing.
Edit: so you don't get stopped at the border and greeted by someone in the UK equivalent of a Yogi Bear hat as you do at Yellowstone etc.
Here's my utterly inexpert crunching of numbers about the sh*t the Russian military is in.
From wiki: "As of August 2021, Russia had about 170 BTGs. Each BTG has approximately 600–800 officers and soldiers, of whom roughly 200 are infantrymen, equipped with vehicles typically including roughly 10 tanks and 40 infantry fighting vehicles."
Russia started the war with well over 100 BTGs on the border of Ukraine. Therefore they put a large proportion of their capability into the invasion effort.
So far, Russia has lost a minimum of 579 tanks. Let us say 550 tanks. That is the equivalent of 55 BTGs. Worse, that is if the ones being destroyed are all in the same BTGs: you could also say that it is half the tanks in 110 BTGs, or a third in 165.
The US military says that when an army unit reaches 50 to 69 percent of its 'full' strength, it becomes ineffective. Less than 50% and it needs to be withdrawn for reconstitution.
Oryx has Russia losing 619 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. That is 'just' 15 BTG's-worth, but they have also lost 321 Armoured fighting vehicles, 103 Armoured Personnel Carriers and 101 Infantry Mobility Vehicles which might be included, depending on definition.
Yes, Russia can call in other tanks and fighting vehicles, but that may involve weakening parts of their massive border they want to keep secure. Or they could get them out of 'storage' - but stored tanks will largely be of lower quality, unmodernised, and they will have lost some of their best crews.
As for troops: Ukraine claims 22,800 Russian troops killed. The UK says around 15,000 killed. Russia's figures are ludicrously low and outdated, and can be discarded.
Let us say 15,000 is ballpark. If we take 900 as the maximum number of troops in a BTG, then around 16 BTGs-worth of troops have been obliterated.
However, that figure counts just dead troops. Taking a ratio of 2 injured or captured to every dead soldier, then we can assume another 32 BTGs worth of troops are fully, or temporarily, unavailable for service. (Some argue poor Russian frontline medical care means the ratio is higher).
So it can be argued that they have 'lost' roughly 50 BTG's worth of tanks and soldiers. Out of 170 in the entire army.
In two months.
Russia can still 'win' this war by conventional means, but they will have hollowed out their army in the process.
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'.
I think you've chosen to ignore the highest probability outcome of all: regime change in Moscow.
History suggests that failing military offensives do not continue forever, because the leader of the aggressors often becomes indisposed.
Suggesting that Putin is seen to lose the war and falls from power? You will upset the Russian shills.
It becomes ever more critical to give Putin a victory to help him consolidate his rule and avoid this worst case scenario. As the Ukrainians are being irresponsible and fighting to prevent this, perhaps we should offer to give him the Isle of Wight?
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
I'm sure they'd have called then the Lost Lands, Lloegyr - they were Welsh, Cymraeg, as the county name suggests.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Boring? That is the very motherlode of tedium we seek here!
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
Being exceptionally pedantic, but surely the number of people actually living in national parks* is extremely small, so would it be LIPNBY?
* Wait, does the UK actually have national parks?
I can see one from the window though I don't live in one. So yes.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
Why are they leaving anyway? Musk doesn't buy it until the deal goes through and that's months away. That's if he even goes through with it. Telegraph were noting earlier that his backing out costs are very low for such a massive undertaking and he is famously mercurial.
The company under his new structure will be servicing a feck of a lot of debt from revenues.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
I take absolute exception with "5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering."
How much suffering would you have inflicted on the people of western Ukraine if Kyiv had fallen?
And that very significant risk of nuclear war has been with us since the 1950s. The fact it hasn't happened in all that time despite wars across the globe suggests that risk is actually very low.
Most of your points are contested, on here and elsewhere, but since you have declared that this is impossible I will take myself off to watch the cricket rather than engage in the futility of contesting your points again.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Boring? That is the very motherlode of tedium we seek here!
Thank you! Cumberland was abolished in 1974, just 48 years ago. Until about a year ago a junior school near here had an old sign saying 'Cumberland County Council'. Some maverick caused it be to be removed, 47 years late, but just before it would have told the truth again. Sunt lacrimae rerum These sorts if thing get Cumberland people excited.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
And the way you write 5 and 6 strongly implies we should appease Putin by giving him chunks of Ukraine to avoid suffering and reduce the risk of nuclear war.
But that can't be right, can it? There are no appeasers in this thread.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
Being exceptionally pedantic, but surely the number of people actually living in national parks* is extremely small, so would it be LIPNBY?
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
I know Russia is MUCH more prepared than most to throw bodies at a problem, but this would just inevitably be a bloodbath. It's going badly enough with professionals, but throwing thousand upon thousand of boys who don't know what they're doing and don't want to be there to be mowed down by well trained, well marshalled troops defending their own soil is both horrific and doomed to fail.
There's a certain amount of rather distasteful glee at Russian losses here and elsewhere. Which I get insofar as Putin's Russia are in the wrong, are doing appalling things to Ukrainian citizens, and need to be defeated. But, in the end, a Russian mother losing her conscript son weeps as hard and with as much reason.
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'.
I think you've chosen to ignore the highest probability outcome of all: regime change in Moscow.
History suggests that failing military offensives do not continue forever, because the leader of the aggressors often becomes indisposed.
Suggesting that Putin is seen to lose the war and falls from power? You will upset the Russian shills.
It becomes ever more critical to give Putin a victory to help him consolidate his rule and avoid this worst case scenario. As the Ukrainians are being irresponsible and fighting to prevent this, perhaps we should offer to give him the Isle of Wight?
Interesting thought. In recent history there have been small political enclaves, often contested, that are richer and more dynamic than the surrounding territory, and others that are poorer and more desperate. The former include some of the most dynamic places on earth, the latter some of the most miserable.
Rich enclaves: Hong Kong, Macau, Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla, West Berlin, Taiwan
Poor enclaves: Kaliningrad, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Native American reservations, Northern Ireland, Donetsk & Luhansk PRs (were richer until 2014).
A Russian IoW would be a truly dismal place. However, I did always like the idea of ceding the Isle of Portland to Spain as a kind of reverse Gibraltar. Nice spot for some evening tapas and Balearic-style clubbing .
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
The 34th Cumberland stand ready for the siege of Penrith.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
I know Russia is MUCH more prepared than most to throw bodies at a problem, but this would just inevitably be a bloodbath. It's going badly enough with professionals, but throwing thousand upon thousand of boys who don't know what they're doing and don't want to be there to be mowed down by well trained, well marshalled troops defending their own soil is both horrific and doomed to fail.
There's a certain amount of rather distasteful glee at Russian losses here and elsewhere. Which I get insofar as Putin's Russia are in the wrong, are doing appalling things to Ukrainian citizens, and need to be defeated. But, in the end, a Russian mother losing her conscript son weeps as hard and with as much reason.
I was watching a pro-Russian video - sent by relatives of relatives. The Russian soldiers seem to live like tramps, with piles of cardboard to insulate their sleeping places. There is lots of aimless milling about, and the bits involving being shot at would have had us screamed at in CCF - "GET UNDER COVER!!!!"
They all seemed to be about 12, apart from an officer who looked rather old.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
The 34th Cumberland stand ready for the siege of Penrith.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
Why are they leaving anyway? Musk doesn't buy it until the deal goes through and that's months away. That's if he even goes through with it. Telegraph were noting earlier that his backing out costs are very low for such a massive undertaking and he is famously mercurial.
The company under his new structure will be servicing a feck of a lot of debt from revenues.
The big drop in Tesla's share price also makes the deal that bit harder.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
What nonsense. Russia has occupied territory. It has not "gained it". The occupied areas are going to be impossible for Russia to hold long term given how much hated they are by the occupied population.
It is also bullshit that Ukraine has not lived up to the Minsk agreement. This is pure Russian shilling.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
Well, at the moment, Michael Kofman describes the Russian army as suffering from a manpower shortage, while Ukraine is the reverse - they have an equipment shortage.
The podcast I linked to earlier goes into the details of how this all derives from how the Russian Army is organised. So they would be able to equip the first tranche of conscripts reasonably well, but then it's a case of rapidly diminishing returns.
Also remember that most of the Ukrainian equipment is very similar, or identical, to the Russian equipment. The Ukrainian advantages have been in training, doctrine, organisation, morale *and* NATO equipment. It's not the case that the Russian equipment is hopelessly obsolete compared to Ukraine's.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
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.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
No, no and no.
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
You're a nimby then too, because you have repeatedly said that National Parks are exempt. I live in a National Park.
That would be a NIYBY surely.
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
Being exceptionally pedantic, but surely the number of people actually living in national parks* is extremely small, so would it be LIPNBY?
The banner image for N Yorks Moors is kind of odd, compared to the others of rolling countryside: Staithes, I think, which is lovely enough on a quiet day, but maybe not the highlight of the moors!
Then the N York Moors page has this image: "Dave realised he should have looked up 'gelding' before accepting the invitation to attend the annual Staithes Gelding Festival"
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
I know Russia is MUCH more prepared than most to throw bodies at a problem, but this would just inevitably be a bloodbath. It's going badly enough with professionals, but throwing thousand upon thousand of boys who don't know what they're doing and don't want to be there to be mowed down by well trained, well marshalled troops defending their own soil is both horrific and doomed to fail.
There's a certain amount of rather distasteful glee at Russian losses here and elsewhere. Which I get insofar as Putin's Russia are in the wrong, are doing appalling things to Ukrainian citizens, and need to be defeated. But, in the end, a Russian mother losing her conscript son weeps as hard and with as much reason.
I was watching a pro-Russian video - sent by relatives of relatives. The Russian soldiers seem to live like tramps, with piles of cardboard to insulate their sleeping places. There is lots of aimless milling about, and the bits involving being shot at would have had us screamed at in CCF - "GET UNDER COVER!!!!"
They all seemed to be about 12, apart from an officer who looked rather old.
To an extent, you're just describing what frontlines are, I presume, generally like. A mixture of squalor, boredom, and extreme danger, featuring people who should really be at school.
We went out to a Tapas place in Skipton yesterday evening. Midweek, expecting it to be very quiet, but not at all. OK, not completely full, but plenty of customers enjoying a meal out.
When the food started to come, and we saw the size of the portions, we realised that we had over-ordered. By good fortune, the person who took our order had missed off one of the dishes, so the excess was manageable.
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'.
How do you think it is that we live in a democracy today, where we are free (ish) to speak our minds, to live our lives?
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
Completely agree, and Ukraine should get all the help the UK and the west can provide.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
I'm currently more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I hope you are right,
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
That's a possibility, but Putin has gone to some considerable lengths to avoid taking that step thus far, so it's not certain.
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
While conscripts may give Russia vast numbers of untrained, unqualified soldiers - what it won't give those soldiers is any equipment to use.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
Well, at the moment, Michael Kofman describes the Russian army as suffering from a manpower shortage, while Ukraine is the reverse - they have an equipment shortage.
The podcast I linked to earlier goes into the details of how this all derives from how the Russian Army is organised. So they would be able to equip the first tranche of conscripts reasonably well, but then it's a case of rapidly diminishing returns.
Also remember that most of the Ukrainian equipment is very similar, or identical, to the Russian equipment. The Ukrainian advantages have been in training, doctrine, organisation, morale *and* NATO equipment. It's not the case that the Russian equipment is hopelessly obsolete compared to Ukraine's.
Russian equipment thoroughly beat Ukrainian equipment in 2014 - just 8 years ago. It is not the equipment (though the western equipment helps) - it's training, doctrine and motivation. The Ukrainians have trained well, having learnt many lessons from 2014. They appear to have taken on a more western doctrine, and their motivation is sky-high as it is their land being invaded.
There are indications that Ukraine is often pulling troops out from the frontline for a rest, replacing them with fresher troops. There are very few indications that the Russians are doing this - aside from their retreat from Kyiv. And they appear to have thrown many of those units straight into operations in the east.
"Not automatically. @YBarddCwsc has throughout shared Putin's fake news, misinformation and made it implicitly clear he wants Putin to succeed though. And not just out of an overexaggerated fear of being nuked meaning he'd happily shaft Ukraine in order to make the bad man with nukes go away like some others here though."
All @YBarddCwsc has done is make the following points.
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
When you say "uncontestable", what exactly do you mean?
There is only one meaning of the word "uncontestable".
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
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 haven't read the guardian article, however I have seen that Barack Obama has lost 300,000 followers and Ron De Santers gained 40,000 over the last 48 hours. Just looked for the link but cant find. with pritty much all Left of centre people loosing some and almost all right of ceter picking up some.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
Why are they leaving anyway? Musk doesn't buy it until the deal goes through and that's months away. That's if he even goes through with it. Telegraph were noting earlier that his backing out costs are very low for such a massive undertaking and he is famously mercurial.
The company under his new structure will be servicing a feck of a lot of debt from revenues.
If he does pull out of the deal - and there are rumours he might - then I really, really hope he, or any of his friends and family, have not been trading in Twitter or Tesla shares behind the scenes whilst this has been going on.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Masterful strategy by the LibDems. Having so few MPs greatly reduces the chances of one of them getting mired in sleaze.
Someone up thread asked us to compare the current invasion with the Cuban missile crisis nearly 60 years earlier. Although 1962 was potentially more dangerous, the difference lies in the Russian Premiers. They're about the same age - coming up to 70, and both are bellicose. Mr K was being egged on by two barmy cnuts (Castro and Guevara) to start World War Three, but he had also lived through and experienced World War Two.
Mr K started off supporting Stalin, but in the 1950s denounced him for what he was. Mr P still looks back on what he sees as a golden age, but only played with his toy soldiers. Mr K seemed to fail but achieved far more than Mr P is likely to. On the QT, JFK withdrew the Jupiter missiles from Turkey that infuriated the USSR.
I can't see what Mr P can achieve now. He's alienated a large block of the world, increased the popularity of NATO, and is likely to do a Ratner on the Russian economy. All he has going for him is that he gives the impression of being as crazy as a shithouse rat, and therefore inscrutable.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Not so fast. A recall petition requires 10 days or 14 sitting days suspension, he's got 2. He only goes if he wants to.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Masterful strategy by the LibDems. Having so few MPs greatly reduces the chances of one of them getting mired in sleaze.
It would be statistically unfortunate if they were amongst the 56 ongoing cases, then. Probably best not to toot that particular horn until they are sure they are in the clear.
And probably best not to reduce this to a party political issue (I dislike the emphasis on 3 ministers as somehow dwarfing 2 shadow ministers, not to mention the other 51 cases.)
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Boring? That is the very motherlode of tedium we seek here!
Thank you! Cumberland was abolished in 1974, just 48 years ago. Until about a year ago a junior school near here had an old sign saying 'Cumberland County Council'. Some maverick caused it be to be removed, 47 years late, but just before it would have told the truth again. Sunt lacrimae rerum These sorts if thing get Cumberland people excited.
The people of nw Cumbria will be voting for a shadow Cumberland authority next week, so we can safely say Cumberland will return soon.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Now I am obviously not a big fan of Bastani or what his possible solutions would be, but I think there are some interesting observations in the article.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Not so fast. A recall petition requires 10 days or 14 sitting days suspension, he's got 2. He only goes if he wants to.
Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances, but this does seem a rather light sentence to me -- 2 days for bullying.
Presumably manslaughter is 4 days, and running amok with a machine gun in the House is 9 days.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Boring? That is the very motherlode of tedium we seek here!
Thank you! Cumberland was abolished in 1974, just 48 years ago. Until about a year ago a junior school near here had an old sign saying 'Cumberland County Council'. Some maverick caused it be to be removed, 47 years late, but just before it would have told the truth again. Sunt lacrimae rerum These sorts if thing get Cumberland people excited.
The people of nw Cumbria will be voting for a shadow Cumberland authority next week, so we can safely say Cumberland will return soon.
Indeed. That's where we started. In my end is my beginning.
On topic AND politicalbetting post. And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Not so fast. A recall petition requires 10 days or 14 sitting days suspension, he's got 2. He only goes if he wants to.
Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances, but this does seem a rather light sentence to me -- 2 days for bullying.
Presumably manslaughter is 4 days, and running amok with a machine gun in the House is 9 days.
And looking at porn is 10 minutes.
Byrne already had a reputation as shall we say a difficult man to work for.
Boring footnote on the local elections. In Cumbria a shadow council is being elected for the two new unitary authorities coming along in April 2023. These are Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
Here we go.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
Lancashire to reclaim Barrow!
And while their forces are deployed elsewhere, Yorkshire will take the opportunity to seize Barnoldswick.
Comments
As for the police, aggravated trespass as a minimum, plus the criminal damage.
Lots of people, at lots of different times, took the difficult choice to run the risk of hardship and death to win us our freedom. I'm very grateful to them that they did.
That's the choice the people of Ukraine have made. They are, as clear as could be, fighting for their freedom and that of their children and future generations. I support them.
Yes, we may face higher energy costs, perhaps even temporary gas rationing. There may even be a non-zero risk of a misunderstanding leading to nuclear escalation.
But this is it. This is one of the fulcrum points of history. If democracies do not defend themselves then democracy will fall. We will lose all that was won for us by previous generations.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine must fail, and must be seen to fail.
I think there are some people who have deleted there twitter account on the left and some who have singed up on the right, and this is above a 'normal' day or 2 days, however its far from a wave, more like a ripple, and the last 48 hours always where going to be the most significant. and if that churn is less than 1% then its not going to change Twitter that much.
If Labour make gains on the night, then the NEV should show a Labour lead.
Sadly it looks like events on the ground indicate that Russia is succeeding, and Germany is their chief enabler.
Is fear of getting nuked not about personal courage?
Is "If Putin wants to press the button, he can" not trivialising?
And is repeatedly calling someone who agrees on the paramount importance of building more houses a Nimby not rather going off on one?
This year it will be "weighted" (if you like) quite heavily to the Tories as a lot of the votes will be in London, Scotland, Birmingham etc. So the Tory NEVS reported will in fact be quite a bit higher than actual vote share if you just add up votes cast for them and divide by total votes cast.
Link.
'I've got you a little Valentine, love.'
'But it's not 14th Feb...'
Most progress comes this way, not out of hardship and sacrifice. We just tend to put up statues to those who suffered and sacrificed and we're taught that nothing good comes without suffering first. Total tosh. There is no inherent benefit in sacrificing our own economy in order to cause economic damage to another country. It is quite simply the stupidest thing that can be imagined.
Mind you, I don't get much of a PM in waiting vibe from anyone in the cabinet, including the present PM!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY4tD2Hbg_A
Fear of getting nuked is about priorities and risk assessment as much as anything else.
If "Putin wants to press the button, he can" is just being honest - if I said "even if Putin wanted to press the button, we could stop him so who cares" that would be trivialising. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any way to prevent Putin from pressing the button if he wants to do so.
As for housebuilding, saying that it is important that more houses are built but just don't build them where I live is about as NIMBY as it gets.
I think that by the middle of May the Russians will likely have exhausted their ability to make large-scale offensives, unless they formally declare war and start a full national mobilisation. So their choice will be to either try to hold on to what they've taken by that stage and declare a victory, or gamble everything.
If they choose to try and sit on what they have I think the Ukrainians have shown some ability to counter attack and regain territory.
If they choose to mobilise it will take them some months to prepare new units, and this will likely enable them to prolong the war, but the new units will not be as well trained or equipped as those that have already been smashed in the fighting so far.
It's possible that Russia might achieve a strategic breakthrough in the next couple of weeks. Ukrainian forces could be about to reach a breaking point, but I'm optimistic that is not the case.
I am sorry you think I insulted you. I would never do that.
Only thing is, over Rishigate there was a splendid auto correct about applications for non dim status, and I looked at your username and thought, I hope he's not holding his breath.
Despite the old names being restored (which will please Appleby in Westmorland especially) the old boundaries have not. In particular the whole of Eden, which includes a large and important chunk of Cumberland has been put, anomalously into W and F, including the ancient Cumberland border town of Penrith. Some villages that are just a few miles from Carlisle and have always looked to it as their local centre will find their loyalty is expected to be to Barrow, which most Cumberland people have hardly heard of and never visited.
You only visit Barrow when ordering a new nuclear submarine, and even then only the once.
Expect a Penrithian row when people notice.
History suggests that failing military offensives do not continue forever, because the leader of the aggressors often becomes indisposed.
p.s. Would be very funny if there was a mum behind pushing her kid on a tracker LOL
I do not live in a National Park, so no I am not a NIMBY.
We are nowhere near sacrificing our economy. We, a very rich country, are taking a minor hit in order to harm a bully.
The money in Moscow is pissed off. Very, very pissed off.....
* Wait, does the UK actually have national parks?
FWIW I noted a chap form RUSI, predicting that Putin will use the '9 May victory day calibrations' to declare war and free him to send in conscripts. I don't know what if any preparations Russia is doing to this end, but it seems credible.
Also depends a bit on the attitude of the populations in the occupied areas. I suspect there is a bit more pro-Russian sentiment in the East and South than we are led to believe, albeit much less than Russia thought. I heard as much yesterday from a colleague who has family and friends in Odesa and Kherson. Will there be resistance, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, or acquiescence?
Some people on here think Putin will use nuclear weapons. I don't think he will; in fact, I think he'd have to be mad to do so. But I don't think he will.
So I'm arguing *against* him being mad.
I'm going to ask this again, as it's fun: do you believe the Dutch report into the MH17 shootdown is accurate and represents the true story of what happened to that flight?
It is not a TardiZ .
But not in the US sense (which IIRC is more like a National Nature Reserve in the UK) - more of a planning control thing.
Edit: so you don't get stopped at the border and greeted by someone in the UK equivalent of a Yogi Bear hat as you do at Yellowstone etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_parks_of_the_United_Kingdom
Devolved, so policies and laws may vary.
From wiki: "As of August 2021, Russia had about 170 BTGs. Each BTG has approximately 600–800 officers and soldiers, of whom roughly 200 are infantrymen, equipped with vehicles typically including roughly 10 tanks and 40 infantry fighting vehicles."
Russia started the war with well over 100 BTGs on the border of Ukraine. Therefore they put a large proportion of their capability into the invasion effort.
So far, Russia has lost a minimum of 579 tanks. Let us say 550 tanks. That is the equivalent of 55 BTGs. Worse, that is if the ones being destroyed are all in the same BTGs: you could also say that it is half the tanks in 110 BTGs, or a third in 165.
The US military says that when an army unit reaches 50 to 69 percent of its 'full' strength, it becomes ineffective. Less than 50% and it needs to be withdrawn for reconstitution.
Oryx has Russia losing 619 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. That is 'just' 15 BTG's-worth, but they have also lost 321 Armoured fighting vehicles, 103 Armoured Personnel Carriers and 101 Infantry Mobility Vehicles which might be included, depending on definition.
Yes, Russia can call in other tanks and fighting vehicles, but that may involve weakening parts of their massive border they want to keep secure. Or they could get them out of 'storage' - but stored tanks will largely be of lower quality, unmodernised, and they will have lost some of their best crews.
As for troops:
Ukraine claims 22,800 Russian troops killed. The UK says around 15,000 killed. Russia's figures are ludicrously low and outdated, and can be discarded.
Let us say 15,000 is ballpark. If we take 900 as the maximum number of troops in a BTG, then around 16 BTGs-worth of troops have been obliterated.
However, that figure counts just dead troops. Taking a ratio of 2 injured or captured to every dead soldier, then we can assume another 32 BTGs worth of troops are fully, or temporarily, unavailable for service. (Some argue poor Russian frontline medical care means the ratio is higher).
So it can be argued that they have 'lost' roughly 50 BTG's worth of tanks and soldiers. Out of 170 in the entire army.
In two months.
Russia can still 'win' this war by conventional means, but they will have hollowed out their army in the process.
Let us ride... to... Political Betting!
[Cast members sing song about shills, house building, national parks, and nuclear conflagration]
Well, on second thought, let's not go to Political Betting. It is a silly place.
Cumberland militias being mobilised to reclaim the lost territories...
For example, there was speculation in March that they would extend the service period of current conscripts at the time the next batch were drafted, but it didn't happen. You might find this podcast interesting as it discusses some of the issues.
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/ukraines-military-advantage-and-russias-stark-choices/
1. The war has been caused by Putin, who is to be condemned.
2. Certainly the Crimea, and possibly some parts of Donetsk/Luhansk, do not wish to be part of Ukraine. This though does not excuse Putin's invasion. The matter should have been resolved by plebiscites held by an independent body like the UN. Ukraine does bear some blame here, as it did not live up to its obligations under Minsk.
3. Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory.
4. The longer this War rages, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities and economy. The longer it rages, the less likely refugees are ever to return.
5. A strategy of providing arms for Ukraine -- while avoiding any direct military intervention -- is guaranteed to prolong the War and maximise suffering.
6. Direct military intervention carries a very significant risk of nuclear war.
7. Just because a wanky politician proclaims that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia will “fail” does not make it true.
All these points are pretty much uncontestable.
The company under his new structure will be servicing a feck of a lot of debt from revenues.
Their Soviet-era hand-me-downs are being pummelled by 21st century NATO equipment. So what are they going to give to untrained conscripts that are going to make them efficient fighters?
How much suffering would you have inflicted on the people of western Ukraine if Kyiv had fallen?
And that very significant risk of nuclear war has been with us since the 1950s. The fact it hasn't happened in all that time despite wars across the globe suggests that risk is actually very low.
But that can't be right, can it? There are no appeasers in this thread.
There's a certain amount of rather distasteful glee at Russian losses here and elsewhere. Which I get insofar as Putin's Russia are in the wrong, are doing appalling things to Ukrainian citizens, and need to be defeated. But, in the end, a Russian mother losing her conscript son weeps as hard and with as much reason.
Rich enclaves: Hong Kong, Macau, Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla, West Berlin, Taiwan
Poor enclaves: Kaliningrad, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Native American reservations, Northern Ireland, Donetsk & Luhansk PRs (were richer until 2014).
A Russian IoW would be a truly dismal place. However, I did always like the idea of ceding the Isle of Portland to Spain as a kind of reverse Gibraltar. Nice spot for some evening tapas and Balearic-style clubbing .
for anti tank weapons
They all seemed to be about 12, apart from an officer who looked rather old.
It is also bullshit that Ukraine has not lived up to the Minsk agreement. This is pure Russian shilling.
The podcast I linked to earlier goes into the details of how this all derives from how the Russian Army is organised. So they would be able to equip the first tranche of conscripts reasonably well, but then it's a case of rapidly diminishing returns.
Also remember that most of the Ukrainian equipment is very similar, or identical, to the Russian equipment. The Ukrainian advantages have been in training, doctrine, organisation, morale *and* NATO equipment. It's not the case that the Russian equipment is hopelessly obsolete compared to Ukraine's.
The White House package is by far the largest single funding proposal of the war and dwarfs the annual defense budgets of most nations.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1519687271343140865
The tank is @HYUFDs personal vehicle....
Staithes, I think, which is lovely enough on a quiet day, but maybe not the highlight of the moors!
Then the N York Moors page has this image:
"Dave realised he should have looked up 'gelding' before accepting the invitation to attend the annual Staithes Gelding Festival"
To an extent, you're just describing what frontlines are, I presume, generally like. A mixture of squalor, boredom, and extreme danger, featuring people who should really be at school.
It means he will receive his full April salary.
https://twitter.com/harry_horton/status/1519690745598423040
We went out to a Tapas place in Skipton yesterday evening. Midweek, expecting it to be very quiet, but not at all. OK, not completely full, but plenty of customers enjoying a meal out.
When the food started to come, and we saw the size of the portions, we realised that we had over-ordered. By good fortune, the person who took our order had missed off one of the dishes, so the excess was manageable.
There are indications that Ukraine is often pulling troops out from the frontline for a rest, replacing them with fresher troops. There are very few indications that the Russians are doing this - aside from their retreat from Kyiv. And they appear to have thrown many of those units straight into operations in the east.
Which ones are you contesting?
For example, take point 3. It may be very regrettable, but it is certainly true that: " Judged from the beginning of the War, Putin has gained significant territory." Of course, this may change in the future, but at the moment it is just a true fact.
Or, take point 7. The vapour of a politician does not make something true just because we all wish very, very hard.
And yet another by election due to sleaze, this time Starmer backing the end of Liam Byrnes political career, via suspension, recall and by election.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-liam-byrne-should-be-suspended-from-commons-for-breaching-bullying-policy-expert-panel-recommends-12600657
With both Labour and Tories mired in sleaze on eve of big elections, this is the moment for Lib Dems and greens to win big from both main parties and be winners on the night?
Mr K started off supporting Stalin, but in the 1950s denounced him for what he was. Mr P still looks back on what he sees as a golden age, but only played with his toy soldiers. Mr K seemed to fail but achieved far more than Mr P is likely to. On the QT, JFK withdrew the Jupiter missiles from Turkey that infuriated the USSR.
I can't see what Mr P can achieve now. He's alienated a large block of the world, increased the popularity of NATO, and is likely to do a Ratner on the Russian economy. All he has going for him is that he gives the impression of being as crazy as a shithouse rat, and therefore inscrutable.
And probably best not to reduce this to a party political issue (I dislike the emphasis on 3 ministers as somehow dwarfing 2 shadow ministers, not to mention the other 51 cases.)
Iraq has overshadowed his litany of domestic failures
BY AARON BASTANI
https://unherd.com/2022/04/how-blair-broke-britain/
Now I am obviously not a big fan of Bastani or what his possible solutions would be, but I think there are some interesting observations in the article.
Presumably manslaughter is 4 days, and running amok with a machine gun in the House is 9 days.
And looking at porn is 10 minutes.
Ed Balls, everyone.