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.
I do hope the DfE read everything I say but given their level of literacy that may be a forlorn hope.
I did actually once have a question from somebody claiming to be a DfE official asking what I thought they deserved for their handling of the pandemic.
And I never got any further reply to my answer, now I come to think of it.
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?
If you exclude Mariupol.......
I would give Stewart Jackson a break. I don't remember him being any more than feisty and as we now know there were quite a few contributors coming from the Palace of Westminster, it's worth respecting the fact he didn't hide behind anonymity.
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.
This is an interesting story. 2 Russian SU 22 strategic bombers destroyed by a drone strike near Kursk.
On topic, that piece by John Curtice does suggest that the leave/remain divide is beginning to splinter quite quickly, as some leavers return to Labour.
Importantly, Truss's rise to power is good for Starmer because it weakens the Tory attack on him as a remainer who tried to stop Brexit. This was a powerful line from Boris, but it really isn't from Truss, given her own history on Brexit. Starmer will just keep repeating: "you voted and campaigned for remain as well; now it's done, just like you I accept it".
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.
Melitopol could be next. Severs the alternative rail route of supply to Kherson and Crimea.
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
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."
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
Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.
Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
You and others here, here, have been overrating the capability of the mighty Russian bear for months now. Perhaps Russia is not mighty, after all.
they have 5 THOUSAND nuclear warheads - stop being so deluded
5,000 - and they haven't used one. Because even one gives them pariah status and loses them their friendships with China and India and Brazil and Mexico. It gains implacable enemy status with the main economies of the planet.
Once upon a time they had 5,000 tanks. Now the have approaching half that, with the ancient museum pieces making up the bulk.
They might about now be thinking they'd have been better off having 50,000 tanks and 500 nukes.
The problem for Russia isn’t numbers - it’s quality and skill. A neatly infinite number of rusty tanks, based on a flawed 1960s design, manned by barely trained, badly led soldiers, with crap logistics doesn’t win. A bit of paint and they might look cool on parade. Winning wars, not so much.
Comments
I did actually once have a question from somebody claiming to be a DfE official asking what I thought they deserved for their handling of the pandemic.
And I never got any further reply to my answer, now I come to think of it.
Six years on there is not a lot of substance to what Brexit is for, from one of its key backers, Michael Gove. https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1578674032303828993/photo/1
I would give Stewart Jackson a break. I don't remember him being any more than feisty and as we now know there were quite a few contributors coming from the Palace of Westminster, it's worth respecting the fact he didn't hide behind anonymity.
https://twitter.com/AlexKokcharov/status/1578384381089120256?t=jTzhJyUcuPU9TRtSmcC5hg&s=19
Importantly, Truss's rise to power is good for Starmer because it weakens the Tory attack on him as a remainer who tried to stop Brexit. This was a powerful line from Boris, but it really isn't from Truss, given her own history on Brexit. Starmer will just keep repeating: "you voted and campaigned for remain as well; now it's done, just like you I accept it".
been promoted from a bridge to a tunnel.