Howdy, Stranger!

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

A LAB majority still longer than evens in the betting – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Alistair said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not a single truck bomb anyway. Two separate blasts brought down two sections some way apart.

    Train fire has burnt out. Rail bridge looks fooked to my untrained eye.

    https://twitter.com/z_swiata/status/1578639857005383680

    Might even be three. There are two on one carriageway but is that a third spot some way ahead on the other carriageway as well?

    That railway bridge doesn't look too good. I suspect it has suffered the fate of the original Britannia Bridge - still standing but fundamentally weakened.

    Doubt if it's done that pillar any favours either.
    Difficult to see the extent of damage on the inner road carriageway, seen at 0:22. If the guy filming has come out of that red vehicle, maybe suggests it is passable and the damage is primarily debris, but I'm not at all sure?
    View from the other side
    https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1578605748942053376


    The inner carriage has been severed without being destroyed.

    So just dump a bit of gravel to make a ramp and I'm sure it will be fine.
    I would expect a lot more surface debris if the explosion was from the top, such as a truck bomb. Also isn't the bridge closed to civilians without a military pass?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Option 2 for the Russian state will be the blaming if Putin and his replacement as a fresh start. Because the Russian elite would prefer to go back to their old borders with a new leader than to risk their families dying. This is why they blocked full mobilization and this is why they would block nuclear war. And Putin is smart enough to know this, so while he might do a nuclear test or two, he won't launch a weapon abroad.
    Alternatively, option 3 is for Putin to round up a lot of the military figures involved in the debacle and have them discredited in a series of show trials. Or simply convicted in a closed courtroom, taken straight out the back and shot.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Good morning all!
    Certainly looks as though the ante has been upped in Ukraine. Must admit I wondered why the bridge wasn't taken out earlier!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    Russian military logistics is predicated on use of heavy rail. This is a mortal blow to the Russian campaign in the south. A single lane of the road bridge would be ideal as it would facilitate the rats leaving.

    First time I’ve been here in a week, amused to see people still sweating the nuke thing. That’s not the play. You should be far more worried about the Norwegian - UK gas pipeline being taken out.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Tory MPs who ousted Boris should have been more careful what they wished for. They summoned their nemesis and are reaping the whirlwind.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Darth Putin enjoying him(?)self:

    Section of Crimea Bridge was promoted to tunnel.
    Having a fire sale on bridges...
    Bridge for sale. One not so careful owner. Offers below please.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    What’s you answer ?
    Exactly how do you ‘de-escalate’ by giving in to Putin ? How does that work, practically ?

    You talk as though it’s a simple process, but such an endeavour (aside from being morally contemptible), would be fraught with as many, if not more uncertainties than continuing to support the victim.

    And it would be far from guaranteed to prevent nuclear confrontation. There’s a strong case that it would make it more likely. As cogently argued here.
    https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1578543016079687680
    If you want nuclear war, give in to nuclear blackmail. If you don’t, then don’t. If you are thinking about nuclear war, this might help
    Huffle puffle. Don't talk about what is morally contemptible unless you are on the front line or have family in Ukraine, and Snyder seems to be a wanker because if you give in to nuclear blackmail the one thing you don't get is nuclear war because why irradiate territory you can acquire in clean condition with just a threat?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    The guided missile cruiser Moskva and the Kerch Bridge – two notorious symbols of russian power in Ukrainian Crimea – have gone down.
    What’s next in line, russkies?


    https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1578651480294592513
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Why would we assume that ?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Also time to laugh at the engineers:

    Despite the difficult building conditions, the bridge’s creators aren’t worried about the possibility of collapse. "It will stay intact for 100 years, Rotenberg said in an interview with the Itogi Nedeli weekly news roundup after the bridge’s inaugural drive. “At least. We guarantee that. Everything is done perfectly well."

    https://www.engineering.com/story/europes-longest-bridge-spans-troubled-waters

    I have been trying to find out whether the railway span was made of metal or reinforced concrete. No luck so far Although after a fire of that scale the point may be moot.
  • Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    I do wonder about Biden's warnings now. Were they timed in the knowledge that the Kerch bridge was about to be dropped, and Putin needed a fresh reminder not to do anything stupid in response?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    .
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    What’s you answer ?
    Exactly how do you ‘de-escalate’ by giving in to Putin ? How does that work, practically ?

    You talk as though it’s a simple process, but such an endeavour (aside from being morally contemptible), would be fraught with as many, if not more uncertainties than continuing to support the victim.

    And it would be far from guaranteed to prevent nuclear confrontation. There’s a strong case that it would make it more likely. As cogently argued here.
    https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1578543016079687680
    If you want nuclear war, give in to nuclear blackmail. If you don’t, then don’t. If you are thinking about nuclear war, this might help
    Huffle puffle. Don't talk about what is morally contemptible unless you are on the front line or have family in Ukraine, and Snyder seems to be a wanker because if you give in to nuclear blackmail the one thing you don't get is nuclear war because why irradiate territory you can acquire in clean condition with just a threat?
    The morality is my opinion; you’re fully entitled to disagree, but out of order expecting me not to express it.
    And you don’t really address Snyder’s argument at all.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    Bad week for Musk. First Starlink goes down, now another Tesla battery fire on the Kerch Bridge.

    On the upside, there’s now an unexpected opening for one of his tunnels.
  • NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Also a bad explosion in Ireland yesterday, three people killed

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63178493

    Not terrorism related as far as is known.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    edited October 2022

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Has the swingback begun?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Has the swingback begun?
    Swinging from a rope more like
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Dirty sleazy Labour on the slide!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
    That's Palin comparison to my effort.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    The three parties will all meet around 30% on that trend. :)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Deal not sealed. SKS fans please explain.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Bad week for Musk. First Starlink goes down, now another Tesla battery fire on the Kerch Bridge.

    On the upside, there’s now an unexpected opening for one of his tunnels.

    There's also now a choice of off-ramps for Putin...
  • Foxy said:

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Dirty sleazy Labour on the slide!
    Crossover by Christmas.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    Foxy said:

    NEW:

    Labour’s lead in Times/YouGov poll falls to … 30 points

    Lab 52 (-2)
    Con 22 (+1)
    LDem 9 (+2)
    Green 6 (-)
    RefUK 5 (+1)

    Fieldwork 6-7 Oct

    Dirty sleazy Labour on the slide!
    Crossover by Christmas.
    Christmas 2030 that is.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    I love the crane that has appeared.

    "We'll just lift them back on. A bit of gaffer tape, you'll be up and running again before teatime...."
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
    Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).

    Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.

    Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
    A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
    Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:

    1) a negotiated peace
    2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
    3) a nuclear exchange

    Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
    You missed out

    4) Ukraine pushes Russia out, except for Crimea. The war doesn’t end. Stuff lobbed at each other on an occasional basis. Pakistan vs India etc…
    5) as for 4) but Ukraine get Crimea.
    6) Putin managed to stabilise the front inside Ukraine, otherwise 4

    In all these cases, Putins off ramp is the eternal war needing eternal patriotism and eternal support in Russia. 1942 - for the rest of his life…
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
    That's Palin comparison to my effort.
    Oh Cleese...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Nigelb said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Why would we assume that ?

    Because everything we know of Russia suggests he remains popular and in control of the media narrative outside the urban elites of Moscow and St Petersburg. Admittedly our information in the West is limited, but my point is a relatively simple one. Putin has annexed these territories to create a narrative - that these bits of Ukraine are part of greater Russia.

    People keep on saying that Putin has everything to lose by going nuclear, but I think that is a very western perspective. As I say, imagine if the war wasn't over "greater Russia" (as a Russian nationalist might see it) but over "greater Britain".

    Deterrence theory requires rational actors, but it also requires a certain amount of equivalence of perception. It's absolutely wrong for Russia to regard parts of Ukraine as bits of "greater Russia" but that makes the equation decidedly more difficult than if, say, the dispute was over a bit of Afghanistan or Iran (to borrow from Threads).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    EPG said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
    Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).

    Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.

    Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
    A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
    Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:

    1) a negotiated peace
    2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
    3) a nuclear exchange

    Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
    Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
    Imagine the King says that he will nuke Russia unless the Ukraine becomes a part of the U.K.?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Who do you trust more to deliver economic growth?

    Conservatives/Truss: 17%
    Labour/Starmer: 32%
    Both equally: 7%
    Neither: 25%

    Which govt would be better at managing the economy?

    Conservatives/Truss: 13%
    Labour/Starmer: 40%
    Both equally: 4%
    Neither: 28%

    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1578658910478643201
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
    That's Palin comparison to my effort.
    Oh Cleese...
    These are just Idle musings.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Option 2 for the Russian state will be the blaming if Putin and his replacement as a fresh start. Because the Russian elite would prefer to go back to their old borders with a new leader than to risk their families dying. This is why they blocked full mobilization and this is why they would block nuclear war. And Putin is smart enough to know this, so while he might do a nuclear test or two, he won't launch a weapon abroad.
    Alternatively, option 3 is for Putin to round up a lot of the military figures involved in the debacle and have them discredited in a series of show trials. Or simply convicted in a closed courtroom, taken straight out the back and shot.
    Or the Putin/military scenario in reverse.

    With the mobilisation it is increasingly clear the public in Russia are getting worried.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    EPG said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
    Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).

    Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.

    Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
    A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
    Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:

    1) a negotiated peace
    2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
    3) a nuclear exchange

    Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
    Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
    Imagine the King says that he will nuke Russia unless the Ukraine becomes a part of the U.K.?
    Prescient avatar, by the way.
  • Footage of the actual explosion apparently, unless it’s off some video game.
    Strangely the candidate for the truck bomb looks like it was on the surviving stretch of road bridge, but explosions can do odd things I guess.

    https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1578637678764904448?s=61&t=Bcv_Pd-wm67CNNlYLIdLrw
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?

    From one of the videos, it looks like a barge or drone boat that exploded under the bridge.

    The question of evading Russian security remains though - they knew the bridge was a strategic target, both of high value to their opponents and a key part of their own supply line.
  • pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
    That's Palin comparison to my effort.
    Oh Cleese...
    These are just Idle musings.
    Punfests are definitely more fun than arguing about trans issues. Bickering about whether someone is a chap/man or not.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?

    It probably wasn't a truck. But whatever form of bomb, how did it evade security on what must be the most vital piece of infrastructure in the war zone?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Excited to see the pro-Russia accounts folding this into their "Russia, strategic geniuses" narrative.

    Mere flesh wound.
    You seem tetchy. Did you have a black night?
    Ni.
    That's Palin comparison to my effort.
    Oh Cleese...
    These are just Idle musings.
    Punfests are definitely more fun than arguing about trans issues. Bickering about whether someone is a chap/man or not.
    Ultimately the answer to that is whether they have any co-Jones.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    Fake news?

    https://twitter.com/JMeilaender/status/1578421827130359811?s=20&t=HE9GUhZZd_ei-U7dROYJQQ
    The actual issue is interesting. Starlink service is being geo-locked in Ukraine to the areas held by Ukraine. Which means that until the Starlink operations team get updated information, the areas being recaptured, rapidly, won’t be served.

    Essentially the Ukrainians are moving so fast that the maps of areas being held are falling behind.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    EPG said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
    Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).

    Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.

    Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
    A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
    Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:

    1) a negotiated peace
    2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
    3) a nuclear exchange

    Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
    Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
    Imagine the King says that he will nuke Russia unless the Ukraine becomes a part of the U.K.?
    the Ukraine???
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?

    It probably wasn't a truck. But whatever form of bomb, how did it evade security on what must be the most vital piece of infrastructure in the war zone?
    Looking at more video evidence I can't see how it was a truck bomb.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    "I am sincerely sorry about what I said to Mel B in the lift. It was wrong on so many levels."

    https://twitter.com/PJAGough/status/1578504344999104515?t=DfTj8LsNsV7Im_JMjaeaFg&s=19
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    Sandpit said:

    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?

    From one of the videos, it looks like a barge or drone boat that exploded under the bridge.

    The question of evading Russian security remains though - they knew the bridge was a strategic target, both of high value to their opponents and a key part of their own supply line.
    They were incapable of adequately protecting it because Russia is a poverty stricken, corrupt, deeply incompetent kleptocracy. All of its legion of fundamental weaknesses are covered by bluster and iron fisted brutality. If those two methods fail to work then it has nothing else to fall back on.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    edited October 2022
    I'm at a medical conference, just heard from a member of the GOSH team doing pre-birth surgery for spina bifida, on pre-birth interventions and partial artificial organ growth.

    All seems like science fiction, but some of this is happening now. Would be a real shame if we all get blasted back to the dark ages in a nuclear exchange.

    ETA: we're getting to the point where our technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic :wink:
  • Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    True colours being shown today, I see.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 775
    Selebian said:

    I'm at a medical conference, just heard from a member of the GOSH team doing pre-birth surgery for spina bifida, on pre-birth interventions and partial artificial organ growth.

    All seems like science fiction, but some of this is happening now. Would be a real shame if we all get blasted back to the dark ages in a nuclear exchange.

    ETA: we're getting to the point where our technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic :wink:

    I think for a lot of people, in a lot of spheres (communications is the most immediate example) we're already there.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,094
    moonshine said:

    Russian military logistics is predicated on use of heavy rail. This is a mortal blow to the Russian campaign in the south. A single lane of the road bridge would be ideal as it would facilitate the rats leaving.

    First time I’ve been here in a week, amused to see people still sweating the nuke thing. That’s not the play. You should be far more worried about the Norwegian - UK gas pipeline being taken out.

    That, I think, is an extremely plausible, and plausibly deniable response.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Rail should be up and running soon enough, road section might take longer
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
    An interesting finding at the end - voters think Conservatives will be better at making Brexit a success by...19 to 17. That's 64% who don't think anyone can make Brexit a success...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
  • pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Option 2 for the Russian state will be the blaming if Putin and his replacement as a fresh start. Because the Russian elite would prefer to go back to their old borders with a new leader than to risk their families dying. This is why they blocked full mobilization and this is why they would block nuclear war. And Putin is smart enough to know this, so while he might do a nuclear test or two, he won't launch a weapon abroad.
    Alternatively, option 3 is for Putin to round up a lot of the military figures involved in the debacle and have them discredited in a series of show trials. Or simply convicted in a closed courtroom, taken straight out the back and shot.
    Nobody blocked full mobilisation. There was no way they were going to call up the entire male fighting-age population without giving most of the ~250000 existing conscripts a role in the war.

    "Closed courtroom" - what, like with George Blake? At least Blake's trial was more recent than the ones in the 1930s starring Vyshinsky, or even Beria's for that matter. So that takes the thoroughly modern internet commenter up to as recently as the 1960s.

    Incidentally, thinking of actual really-existing 2020s Russia, rather than the snow on yer boots Tory archetype, we haven't heard from Pussy Riot recently.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    edited October 2022
    Selebian said:

    I'm at a medical conference, just heard from a member of the GOSH team doing pre-birth surgery for spina bifida, on pre-birth interventions and partial artificial organ growth.

    All seems like science fiction, but some of this is happening now. Would be a real shame if we all get blasted back to the dark ages in a nuclear exchange.

    ETA: we're getting to the point where our technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic :wink:

    Surely technology we haven't come across before often looks indistinguishable from magic?

    What would a medieval person make of electric lights? What would a Victorian make of smartphones?

    Harry Potter's Marauder's Map seemed appropriately magical when it appeared in the 1999 Prisoner of Azkaban novel but now everybody's smartphone can do the equivalent.

    PS Those medical advances are great though! And yes lets hope we don't get blasted back to the dark ages.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    At least one part of the road is down and the damage to the rail link looks severe:https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1578638416194912256?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1578638416194912256|twgr^4db55d27be8f6628f25dabcaa6bcd7982c6d300b|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/10/7/2127683/-SHOCKING-UNEXPECTED-Ukraine-Update-Kerch-Bridge-hit-hard

    As @Sandpit pointed out earlier exposure to such severe heat is not going to have done much for the structural strength of the concrete anywhere near the remains of that train.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Do I count as part of the western media? I suppose I do. Quite a thought and with it comes a responsibility to calmly assess everything on its merits, case by case. So here my conclusion, having done so, is that Russia did vandalize the pipeline but not the bridge.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Assuming that was a truck bomb, how on earth did it evade Russian security?

    From one of the videos, it looks like a barge or drone boat that exploded under the bridge.

    The question of evading Russian security remains though - they knew the bridge was a strategic target, both of high value to their opponents and a key part of their own supply line.
    They were incapable of adequately protecting it because Russia is a poverty stricken, corrupt, deeply incompetent kleptocracy. All of its legion of fundamental weaknesses are covered by bluster and iron fisted brutality. If those two methods fail to work then it has nothing else to fall back on.
    It could at least try humanity and civilization....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    Phillips P. OBrien
    @PhillipsPOBrien
    ·
    2h
    Hard to think it’s anything but a planned attack as we are at Putin’s birthday.

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1578659765752037376
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    I would imagine that the aim is just to destablise Putin; reinforcing the existing perception (based on the mobilisation) that the military is in a mess and is losing in Ukraine.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    While attention is on Kerch:

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1578651113745952769

    @EuromaidanPress
    HIMARS strike destroys train fuel station in Russian-occupied Ilovaisk

    Explosions were reported at the key railway hub located 40 km from the battlefront around midnight on 8 October, acc. to local Telegram channels
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,351
    Centre right Telegraph man Tim Stanley hilariously pointing out in the Speccie that the problem with Conservatism is that in the end it runs out of other people's money.

    (And that it culturally trashes everything it touches too).

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-conservatives-know-they-are-beat?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BOCH 08102022 HT+CID_2e9a889a6d60ed26ab2571b7d0e3129f

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    "Next week Liz Truss will realise her rainy trip to Birmingham, as rocky as it was, was probably as good as her time in office was ever going to get," writes @jessphillips https://bit.ly/3Eo1oHs #LizTruss
  • Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    These Russian trolls are clever don't you know. Or at least they think they are.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,164
    edited October 2022
    algarkirk said:

    Centre right Telegraph man Tim Stanley hilariously pointing out in the Speccie that the problem with Conservatism is that in the end it runs out of other people's money.

    (And that it culturally trashes everything it touches too).

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-conservatives-know-they-are-beat?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BOCH 08102022 HT+CID_2e9a889a6d60ed26ab2571b7d0e3129f

    Tim Stanley stood as a Labour candidate at the 2005 GE. Not a serious commentator, but a useful canary.
  • Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    Current reports from the Russian authorities say no support arches were damaged. That may of course be untrue, but soon we will find out.

    One of the guys being quoted is Oleg Kryuchkov, an advisor to Sergey Aksyonov, head of Crimea.
    Is he by any chance related to the late Vladimir Kryuchkov?

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    EPG said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
    Well the optimal outcome for humanity is avoiding Russia's delusional leadership from using any kind of nuclear weapon; so, in a perfect world, assuming full Western and Ukrainian agreement, we need to give Putin a way to back down in a way he can sell to the Russian elite as a victory. Off the top of my head, this could look like Ukraine making concessions by formally recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea and agreeing to allow Russia to supply Crimea with water and energy through Ukrainian territory. I'd suggest offering UN-supervised referenda in the occupied Ukrainian provinces on joining Russia (I suspect they'd all heavily vote to remain in Ukraine) and some kind of UN-sponsored relocation program for anyone in those occupied territories who wished to live in Russia/Ukraine after their region voted to be Ukrainian/Russian. I'd also replace the (fully justified) "stick" of sanctions to punish Russia's aggression in Ukraine with a "carrot" (maybe some kind of guaranteed pricing per unit of oil/gas while Russia and the collective West adhere to some kind of broader peace agreement).

    Then, again assuming complete Western agreement, I'd set up some kind of international nuclear weapons "trade in" scheme aimed at Russia where they could exchange nuclear weapons with fissile material dated from pre 1990 for consumer goods and some kind of megatonnage tradeoff with the West destroying a proportion of their own stockpile.

    Probably not perfect but I'm just an idiot on the internet who doesn't want a nuclear war.
    A UN-supervised referendum in Crimea I reckon most people could get behind. The rest… not so much.
    Ultimately there are three ways this war ends:

    1) a negotiated peace
    2) unilateral Russian/Ukrainian surrender
    3) a nuclear exchange

    Option 3 results in the deaths of billions. Given the paranoia and instability of the Russian regime, if it looks like Option 2 is likely for Putin, he could resort to Option 3, which results in the deaths of billions. I don't want the deaths of billions. So, rationally, I'm looking at Option 1, even if I don't like the political implications of negotiating. Avoiding the death of billions is the overwhelming priority.
    Imagine if you were King and he told you he would nuke you if you didn't hand over Britain.
    Imagine the King says that he will nuke Russia unless the Ukraine becomes a part of the U.K.?
    the Ukraine???
    Yes but used less recently.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    These Russian trolls are clever don't you know. Or at least they think they are.
    TBF, this one is a fuckton cleverer than the previous mob. Can even have rational and polite conversations on some subjects.

    Admittedly with the possible exception of Dynamo that's a very low bar.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    The war is trending strongly towards Ukraine.

    O Brien
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    pigeon said:

    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Option 2 for the Russian state will be the blaming if Putin and his replacement as a fresh start. Because the Russian elite would prefer to go back to their old borders with a new leader than to risk their families dying. This is why they blocked full mobilization and this is why they would block nuclear war. And Putin is smart enough to know this, so while he might do a nuclear test or two, he won't launch a weapon abroad.
    Alternatively, option 3 is for Putin to round up a lot of the military figures involved in the debacle and have them discredited in a series of show trials. Or simply convicted in a closed courtroom, taken straight out the back and shot.
    Nobody blocked full mobilisation. There was no way they were going to call up the entire male fighting-age population without giving most of the ~250000 existing conscripts a role in the war.

    "Closed courtroom" - what, like with George Blake? At least Blake's trial was more recent than the ones in the 1930s starring Vyshinsky, or even Beria's for that matter. So that takes the thoroughly modern internet commenter up to as recently as the 1960s.

    Incidentally, thinking of actual really-existing 2020s Russia, rather than the snow on yer boots Tory archetype, we haven't heard from Pussy Riot recently.
    AFAIK the members of Pussy Riot have escaped into exile. I recall reading about a performance in this country recently.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Lol - https://twitter.com/baronitaigas had gone with "no real damage" as well but has now locked their account.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited October 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Rail should be up and running soon enough, road section might take longer
    Other way round, I suspect. My guess is run a Bailey type bridge across the gap in the inner bridge and it can be running in about 12 hours.

    The rail bridge deck however they may have to actually demolish and rebuild.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    While attention is on Kerch:

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1578651113745952769

    @EuromaidanPress
    HIMARS strike destroys train fuel station in Russian-occupied Ilovaisk

    Explosions were reported at the key railway hub located 40 km from the battlefront around midnight on 8 October, acc. to local Telegram channels

    Taking out both railways lines in the South? Then Ukr goes in to finish the job.

    Happy Birthday Vlad!!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ICYMI: Do Leave voters still support the @Conservatives? https://bit.ly/3fMyBSO
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    This has been the best week of the war, since the Russian withdrawal from around Kiev at the start of April. A brilliant effort from everyone involved! Kherson city next.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    The other big news of the day (a good time to bury it?) is that our old friend Stewart Jackson is getting a peerage. In less good news Paul Dacre is also getting one apparently.
  • darkage said:

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    I would imagine that the aim is just to destablise Putin; reinforcing the existing perception (based on the mobilisation) that the military is in a mess and is losing in Ukraine.
    Do you mean whoever did it wanted to cause minor damage only, solely as a psywar op, so as to reinforce the perception that they're winning the physical war? Why not blow it up good and proper and achieve both psychological and physical goals? I think that's probably what they were aiming to do.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    The other big news of the day (a good time to bury it?) is that our old friend Stewart Jackson is getting a peerage. In less good news Paul Dacre is also getting one apparently.

    The strongest case for abolition of the Lords is the calibre of the people being elevated to permanently rule over us.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
    An interesting finding at the end - voters think Conservatives will be better at making Brexit a success by...19 to 17. That's 64% who don't think anyone can make Brexit a success...
    64% who don't think politics and politicians can make a success of.....?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Sandpit said:

    This has been the best week of the war, since the Russian withdrawal from around Kiev at the start of April. A brilliant effort from everyone involved! Kherson city next.

    Speaking as an ignoramus, if Kherson were to be recaptured (and I assume Russia is dug in pretty tight) that feels like something not even Russia could spin as a temporary setback, an genuine crunch point determining how they will react to defeat - isn't it the biggest city to have been taken?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    darkage said:

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    I would imagine that the aim is just to destablise Putin; reinforcing the existing perception (based on the mobilisation) that the military is in a mess and is losing in Ukraine.
    Do you mean whoever did it wanted to cause minor damage only, solely as a psywar op, so as to reinforce the perception that they're winning the physical war? Why not blow it up good and proper and achieve both psychological and physical goals? I think that's probably what they were aiming to do.
    I'm intrigued. The bridge is currently impassable, two sections of one carriageway are in the sea, there's a bloody great hole in the other and the deck of the railway bridge has almost certainly been compromised across two spans, possibly more.

    What would 'blowing it up good and proper' look like?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,468

    The other big news of the day (a good time to bury it?) is that our old friend Stewart Jackson is getting a peerage. In less good news Paul Dacre is also getting one apparently.

    Neither should get one. Both are unpleasant people. SJ posts here weren't particularly nice as I remember.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,857
    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Rationally, Putin must be looking for something which maximises Ukrainian intimidation and/or destruction, but minimises the response from NATO and indeed any kickback from allies like China.

    A nuclear weapon doesn’t really fit the bill.

    If he's rational. We hope he is and is just acting irrational, but his statements have been far from rational (people will say that from his warped context it is rational, but I'd dispute that due to the shifting varities of pretexts he has used at different points).
    The detonation of a nuclear weapon on Russian soil ("a test, comrade") right now would have the effects of spooking both the ordinary populace of the west (fights over the last loo roll) as well as the markets (the reaction to the kamikwazi budget, only x10).
    Is there Russian soil remote and depopulated enough for a detonation?

    The more you think about it, the more Putin has everything to lose from “going nuclear”.

    Apart from anything else, it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat, and Russians don’t want to be vaporised any more than Westerners

    Exactly, “it’s essentially an admission of conventional defeat”. A humiliation for Russia with the added guarantee of vaporisation.

    I don’t rule it out but it seems unlikely. Whereas caving into nuclear blackmail now almost guarantees a much worse situation in a few years time when Putin, or someone else, tries again.
    My experience of large bureacuracies is that when they run out of option 1, they try option 2. The scenario I outline above is a viable "option 2" scenario for Russia - a nuke on their own soil "as a test" would be a financial weapon as well as one of mass panic.

    The point is that Russia is running out of option 1. Lots of people here seem to be assuming that if Ukraine retakes all its territory, retakes Crimea, etc, then Russia goes, yep, you won. Congrats. That seems unlikely to me to happen.

    Nuclear weapons appear irrational from our perspective, but not irrational from the perspective of a nation that sees Ukraine (or parts of it) as Russian land. For example, imagine if bits of Cornwall were occupied by Putin. A significantly higher portion of UK citizens might agree with the use of nuclear weapons to drive the invaders out of Cornwall than, say, if the Russians were in Normandy. The problem we all have is that Russia has sold, and is in the process of selling, those bits of Ukraine as "bits of Cornwall" to its own citizenry. Therefore to us what looks irrational appears to be part of a rational defensive strategy to ordinary Russians.

    Look at the rhetoric, look at the narrative. Putin's annexation of those territories (in the face of all the evidence, and military force to the contrary) tells you the narrative. Now, if we assume the majority of the Russian people see those territories as Russian, how do we think they will respond?
    Why would we assume that ?

    Because everything we know of Russia suggests he remains popular and in control of the media narrative outside the urban elites of Moscow and St Petersburg. Admittedly our information in the West is limited, but my point is a relatively simple one. Putin has annexed these territories to create a narrative - that these bits of Ukraine are part of greater Russia.

    People keep on saying that Putin has everything to lose by going nuclear, but I think that is a very western perspective. As I say, imagine if the war wasn't over "greater Russia" (as a Russian nationalist might see it) but over "greater Britain".

    Deterrence theory requires rational actors, but it also requires a certain amount of equivalence of perception. It's absolutely wrong for Russia to regard parts of Ukraine as bits of "greater Russia" but that makes the equation decidedly more difficult than if, say, the dispute was over a bit of Afghanistan or Iran (to borrow from Threads).
    It's a deeply worrying situation but I can't see any other way to handle it than the Biden administration is doing - which is all about the following keystones:

    - Maintain support for Ukraine.
    - Avoid direct military engagement and do not escalate.
    - Leave Putin in no doubt that using WMDs will bring retaliation not concessions.

    That is it for now, I think - and now is all there is.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Foxy said:

    The strongest case for abolition of the Lords is the calibre of the people being elevated to permanently rule over us.

    How do we rid ourselves of these unelected bureaucrats...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited October 2022
    Blair and Brown did not issue any resignation honours, just saying.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    ydoethur said:

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    These Russian trolls are clever don't you know. Or at least they think they are.
    TBF, this one is a fuckton cleverer than the previous mob. Can even have rational and polite conversations on some subjects.

    Admittedly with the possible exception of Dynamo that's a very low bar.
    I'm still amazed that Russian trolls bother to target discussions on PB, given that they consist principally of a series of discussions of varying degrees of civility between the same group of about three dozen people.

    OTOH perhaps there really are tens of thousands of silent (and in some cases quite important) readers hanging on our every word? Which is a bizarre thought.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    kle4 said:

    Blair and Brown did not issue any resignation honours, just saying.

    Brown issued a dissolution honours list, which amounts to the same thing.

    Blair was apparently stymied by Cash for Peerages.
  • Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Ouch for Liz Truss. Although the good news for her she has slashed the Labour lead from 33% last week to a mangeable 30% Labour lead this week with @YouGov.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-blame-ministers-mortgages-ml79vzcff



    Even I think this is unfair. But the government only have themselves to blame for the fact the public are blaming them. They have reached the stage where the voters won't give them a fair hearing about anything. There is no way back from this. Labour majority is underpriced.
    An interesting finding at the end - voters think Conservatives will be better at making Brexit a success by...19 to 17. That's 64% who don't think anyone can make Brexit a success...
    No laughing at the back there but there will be those that think Brexit is done and already a success?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    The idea of single term 15 year Lords was not entirely a bad one to be honest. But short of abolition I still think my proposal of no going straight from Commons to Lords without a gap of 10 years is a good one, and one Truss might like to get on board right not, since it means a new PM will not be tested immediately with by-elections.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2022
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Will the western media say Russia attacked its own bridge as well as its pipelines?

    Then again, the bridge attack seems to have been a failure except as psywar and to gain intelligence from the response. Back up and running on Monday or Tuesday?

    Interesting that you take the line of downplaying it rather than talking up the threat of retaliation from Russia.
    These Russian trolls are clever don't you know. Or at least they think they are.
    TBF, this one is a fuckton cleverer than the previous mob. Can even have rational and polite conversations on some subjects.

    Admittedly with the possible exception of Dynamo that's a very low bar.
    I'm still amazed that Russian trolls bother to target discussions on PB, given that they consist principally of a series of discussions of varying degrees of civility between the same group of about three dozen people.

    OTOH perhaps there really are tens of thousands of silent (and in some cases quite important) readers hanging on our every word? Which is a bizarre thought.
    Just put that in the report and claim whatever you get per comment, they probably won't check.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Won't we get Corononation Honours or Demise Honours or something? Charles to give peerages to green campaigners and non modernist architects?
This discussion has been closed.