So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine. I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.
I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.
What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.
It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.
I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.
His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.
I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.
There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:
1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;
2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.
There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.
In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.
Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.
Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.
If Russia is driven out of Kherson then Crimea is 'next' on that front and will be very exposed, especially with the Kerch bridge damaged. With the Russian military decrepit and defeated, Ukraine would have an opportunity to press the advantage and press on from Kherson to Crimea.
Russia would have no land bridge left to Crimea, while Ukraine would, and a superior army that has defeated their enemies army on the field of battle, why not press their advantage?
Ukraine can't attack Crimea using clever flanking manoeuvres - it's accessible overland only via narrow passages that the Russian army can fortify - and, given that Ukraine has no navy, it seems reasonable to assume that its capacity to attempt an amphibious assault would also be somewhat limited.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Basically you think the enemy commander is stupid, wicked, and flies into rages, and that unlike you he doesn't understand the value of money, right? I would laugh if this weren't so serious.
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine. I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.
I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.
What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.
It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.
I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.
His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.
I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.
There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:
1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;
2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.
There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.
In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.
Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.
Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.
If Russia is driven out of Kherson then Crimea is 'next' on that front and will be very exposed, especially with the Kerch bridge damaged. With the Russian military decrepit and defeated, Ukraine would have an opportunity to press the advantage and press on from Kherson to Crimea.
Russia would have no land bridge left to Crimea, while Ukraine would, and a superior army that has defeated their enemies army on the field of battle, why not press their advantage?
Yes and if my auntie were my uncle, she'd have a pair of knackers.
We have to ask, what is the point of Truss/Kwasi now?
If their only claim to fame was disrupting the establishment, they completely blew their wad in a single day and have been trying to recover ever since.
Tory MPs know what needs to be done...
Lets say you're right, if Truss and Kwasi have 'learnt that lesson' and now fall then they could be replaced by Badenoch or similar who think that Truss's mistake was to not disrupt the establishment enough.
I recall a story someone I know likes to tell about a mistake early in their career they made that cost their employer £1 million. They informed their boss about the mistake and offered their resignation, the boss declined the resignation saying "why would I want you to resign, I've just spent £1 million training you".
The MPS will see a Truss/Kwarteng government that has two modes:
1. A basic instinct to propose something the voters and the markets think is bat-shit crazy
2. To back down from the bat-shit crazy (the Russian expression is I think "to regroup").
Which Tory MPs outside the Cabinet in their right mind would want that to carry on for two more years???
It's 7 extra years in Opposition for every 1 year Truss is in power, IMHO.
Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟♀️
Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.
Let’s hope you are right - but are they promising markets it’s going to address their concerns and balance the books are they not. and there are many cunning ways to make cuts, slashing the councils support money is certain to happen, councils get the blame for what is government cut, the ideology of this government is to wheen lazy Britain off tax payer funded hand outs to make us productive and have growth again, and they WILL have enough votes for that in commons, or at least some changes - backbenchers will use the headline u turn they forced on government about UC uprated with inflation as a smokescreen to vote for other changes.
That is actually the crucial thing here isn’t it - the moment Tory MPs votes enable Truss agenda, it becomes their agenda too, in voters eyes, in opposition comms - so even removal of Truss won’t move the polls much as they will all be tarnished with it.
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine. I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.
I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.
What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.
It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.
I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.
His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.
I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.
There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:
1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;
2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.
There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.
In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.
Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.
Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.
If Russia is driven out of Kherson then Crimea is 'next' on that front and will be very exposed, especially with the Kerch bridge damaged. With the Russian military decrepit and defeated, Ukraine would have an opportunity to press the advantage and press on from Kherson to Crimea.
Russia would have no land bridge left to Crimea, while Ukraine would, and a superior army that has defeated their enemies army on the field of battle, why not press their advantage?
I don’t think it will come to that. If Putin withdraws to post-2014 levels I think a ceasefire will be signed and will be accepted.
I would like to see Ukraine returning to it’s pre-2014 borders but I suspect that is probably a leap too far right now.
This is a terrible story but, putting a cold-hearted hat on, this story probably will have implications for the Nevada Senate and Governor races given the circumstances of the attacker:
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?
The Russians found a remote controlled boat washed up on the beach in Sevastopol only a few weeks ago. Circumstantial evidence suggests that it contained some kind of explosive device & was Ukranian in origin, although the Russian military haven’t given any details.
So although a truck bomb is a plausible cause, it’s not the only possibility & a floating drone laden with explosives is definitely another option.
The more interesting point is that PB hysteria has reached the stage when merely saying "a truck bomb is a likely explanation, but we don't know" apparently makes you a Muscovite shill and a fucking appeaser
"And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes"
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Basically you think the enemy commander is stupid, wicked, and flies into rages, and that unlike you he doesn't understand the value of money, right? I would laugh if this weren't so serious.
It's never fun when someone disses your boss, is it?
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?
The Russians found a remote controlled boat washed up on the beach in Sevastopol only a few weeks ago. Circumstantial evidence suggests that it contained some kind of explosive device & was Ukranian in origin, although the Russian military haven’t given any details.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟♀️
Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.
But the Markets need to see the numbers adding up. Something has to give.
Absolutely spot on.
And the impossible problem for Truss and Kwarteng is that they can't make them add. The maths don't work. They had a plan sketched out on a napkin, chunks of it have already either been scrapped or will be scrapped as they can't get the votes to pass them.
So a plan which didn't add up at the start is now full of holes and the funding gap AND the credibility gap are bigger than ever. So when KT and the Fuckup Gang try to carry on - as they still are - it demonstrates to the markets ever more that they haven't a clue what they are doing.
If they did a mea culpa, said "we can't get this through, we'll boot it back into the 2024 manifesto, meanwhile here are some more limited but costed growth plans" they might get away with it.
But they won't do that. Because they are the smartest people in the room and all the critics are woke leftist remoaners.
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?
Since when did you accept "regarded as the most likely explanation"? You certainly didn't over the origins of Covid!
So let me get this right. In PB Universe, Putin is paying off the editor of the Financial Times?
Most of their tripe is specious rationalisation, @Leon, which it is sad to watch people engage in who otherwise have considerable intellectual capacity. They just can't make the leap to thinking for themselves about the big picture - they've never done this in their lives - so the poor sweethearts get really nasty when that's an issue.
But then what do we expect from people most of whom are long-term Twitter users? I mean would you have a friend whose hobby, indulged 20 times a day, involved inscriptions on toilet walls?
That said, I have no idea whether the Kerch bridge attack was more successful than the attackers expected or less. If they blew something up from underneath, they didn't exactly put the bridge out of action for long. I seem to remember you're supposed to put explosive charges in two different places when blowing a bridge, but clearly the rules are different if you're using a vehicle whether submarine-launched or otherwise. On the other hand, if a charge was detonated inside the lorry then controlling the timing so that it blew exactly when the fuel train was passing was impressive, even if the train didn't fall from the bridge into the sea which would have made for much more dramatic footage.
The main success of the attack was psychological and (will be) escalatory.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
Putin isn't a lunatic - all that he does is considered and rational from his perspective. His goal is to boost his position and his country's status. He is losing the war but can still claim a win with a brokered peace as he demanded at the annexation ceremony.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
The majority were Kalibr cruise missiles according to the sources I’ve seen. Expensive, in limited supply & the Ukranians claim to have shot down more than half of this barrage.
& yes, obviously rear-echelon infrastucture is a valid target in wartime but, when you’re extremely short on precision long range missiles, using them in this way when they could be used for much higher value (in military terms) targets seems like a mistake.
Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟♀️
Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.
But the Markets need to see the numbers adding up. Something has to give.
Absolutely spot on.
And the impossible problem for Truss and Kwarteng is that they can't make them add. The maths don't work. They had a plan sketched out on a napkin, chunks of it have already either been scrapped or will be scrapped as they can't get the votes to pass them.
So a plan which didn't add up at the start is now full of holes and the funding gap AND the credibility gap are bigger than ever. So when KT and the Fuckup Gang try to carry on - as they still are - it demonstrates to the markets ever more that they haven't a clue what they are doing.
If they did a mea culpa, said "we can't get this through, we'll boot it back into the 2024 manifesto, meanwhile here are some more limited but costed growth plans" they might get away with it.
But they won't do that. Because they are the smartest people in the room and all the critics are woke leftist remoaners.
To be really fair though, the borrow quarter of a trillion to bastardise UKs unique type of energy market capitalism is a Lib Dem and Labour policy Truss merely stole for convenience - the Lab Lib coalition trying to get quarter of a trillion on UKs credit card would fall foul in just the same way with the markets in just the same way, putting them in not as bad, due to no tax cuts but tax increases to cover a wee bit of that quarter trillion, but a very similar mess? Because the truth here is, despite the £43B tax giveaway being so much smaller borrowing than quarter of a trillion, brain dead government clueless how to spin has allowed the £43B to get ALL the blame for the crisis. It’s questionable it’s actually the £43B giveaway anyway, as IFS now saying as much as £30B taken at same time via stealth tax (the thresholds not moved etc) so it’s only a £13B of giveaways getting all the blame for a quarter of a trillion in market scaring borrowing that’s a Lib Dem Labour policy first and foremost.
I'd also suggest that I'm not the only person in the City and on Wall Street asking for this data. The UK pension funding question is being asked everywhere at the moment and I really do fear that the answers are going to be extremely ugly.
It’s time people faced up to reality. I suspect it will need primary legislation to solve if you don’t want the pension funds to drag down otherwise healthy businesses.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
If he wants a draw, he can get one. Withdraw from Kharkiv, Sevastopol, Melitupol etc and return to Russia's own borders antebellum.
He won't have expanded Russia's borders, but he won't have lost Moscow either.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
The majority were Kalibr cruise missiles according to the sources I’ve seen. Expensive, in limited supply & the Ukranians claim to have shot down more than half of this barrage.
& yes, obviously rear-echelon infrastucture is a valid target in wartime but, when you’re extremely short on precision long range missiles, using them in this way when they could be used for much higher value (in military terms) targets seems like a mistake.
It's certainly not going to win the war on its own, and I doubt the Russians can sustain it, for the reasons you say. Too expensive, limited supply
But I don't see it as "a mistake". Politically, Putin had to retaliate. And quite publicly and dramatically. The Russian people wanted revenge. A conventional missile attack was always a likely response. some of us predicted exactly this before today
I note that Kadyrov has stated on Telegram that he is now "100% happy" with Putin's SMO. Whether Kadyrov really believes that or not (I doubt it) Putin has got the nutters back on board. For now
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
There is no equivalency between both draws outlined above - since in the second draw everyone dies. It is probably fairer to describe it as a mutual loss. You’d have to be fairly far gone to think that such a ‘draw’ is a desired outcome.
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?
The Russians found a remote controlled boat washed up on the beach in Sevastopol only a few weeks ago. Circumstantial evidence suggests that it contained some kind of explosive device & was Ukranian in origin, although the Russian military haven’t given any details.
So although a truck bomb is a plausible cause, it’s not the only possibility & a floating drone laden with explosives is definitely another option.
The more interesting point is that PB hysteria has reached the stage when merely saying "a truck bomb is a likely explanation, but we don't know" apparently makes you a Muscovite shill and a fucking appeaser
"And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes"
So use the evidence of your eyes. Where is there any external evidence that supports a massive blast on the carriageway? ANY?
All the special forces bods I have been reading have said "explosives under the roadway. Good job..."
Plus, a small thing. The Ukrainians are very quick to laud their departed heroes. If it was a balding 50's plumber from Lviv who had given his life for the greater cause, he would have been the subject of hagiography.
Also just a point about nuclear strikes. The bridge attack would have been a perfect excuse for Putin to use them. He hasn't done so. He has launched conventional missiles at Ukrainian cities. He is constrained by some influences currently.
There has been a dialling back again in terms of the comments coming out of Moscow and Washington. It certainly doesn’t look like any such action is imminent. We are probably not quite at the moment of maximum danger yet though: I think the only time when Putin can really choose to go nuclear (because afterwards what does he have left?) is when he is given the stark choice that there is no path to victory and he either needs to withdraw or up the stakes. Even then he’s got to get it past the other officials in the Russian government.
I dont think that message has been delivered to him yet and I think he will still be hoping the mobilisation could work.
Putin, I am convinced, is lied to daily by his staff. Years and years of lying and lying has made it almost impossible to get to the truth of the matter. As you say, he's probably still been told that mobilisation will fix all the problems (it won't - it will make matters worse).
I can already see it now.
"Yes, the Kerch bridge has been hit. We are investigating now (we haven't a clue, it'll take weeks to figure it out). One road lane is down but can be replaced easily enough (it can't, it'll take months IF we weren't a massively corrupt dictatorship), the other is slightly damaged but can take wheelled vehicles easily enough (chap with a push scooter just tried it, it was fine). We're going to try tracked vehicles soon, which we anticipate will be fine as well (we'll report if it IS okay, but not otherwise). One rail line is damaged but we'll have the blocked train moved soon (we won't) and inspect the damage. I'm sure the line will be fine though (it's not, its fucked. Burning fuel DOES melt steel despite what those 9/11 nutjobs claim). The other one is 100% operational still (we ran a slow recovery train through it.... it'll be fine)."
Complete bollocks, but both the listener (Putin) laps it up, and the teller eventually convinces themselves they aren't lying either.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
Putin isn't a lunatic - all that he does is considered and rational from his perspective. His goal is to boost his position and his country's status. He is losing the war but can still claim a win with a brokered peace as he demanded at the annexation ceremony.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
He will not go nuclear.
I'm torn between the rational objective of getting a negotiated outcome with Putin in Ukraine's interest and thinking, fuck it, send him to the Hague.
Further to the discussion on DB pensions the other day I've put a couple of researchers on the task of collating all UK private sector pension funds, deficits, pay out timeframes and number of beneficiaries.
I think over the next 5-7 years legacy UK companies with big DB pension schemes will become uninvestible and the market meltdown triggered by Kwasi is slowly making investors realise that the UK economy is on the path to bankruptcy.
Are you looking at universities as well? I mean, I know it's a grey area as to whether they're state or private but if you ever want to see a shambles, take a good look at the Universities' Superannuation Scheme.
Nah, those are state backed, will do them in a separate exercise.
Now that's interesting. Are they state backed? Because AIUI the UCU have been told that they're not.
Not explicitly, yet there is expectation of a bail out should the fund sink.
Fair enough, if you feel that puts it outside the terms of reference. Building on what @rottenborough said certainly they will have some tough decisions to make when (repeat when) it does implode.
Although I wonder if a more likely scenario is that the older universities will be stripped of their endowments to meet the gap.
Not that that would be popular with Oxbridge!
I expect beneficiaries will take a ~30% haircut in return for a state bailout. It will be presented as "it's this or no pension".
And many lawyers will get very rich as a result...
Surely the shareholders of the company should get wiped out first? After all, they benefited from unsustainable promises to hire employees more cheaply.
With chapter 11 I think the equity owners get around 10-15c/$
You need them to cooperate in the process
Basically create a new company - equity owners get 20%, pensioners get 20%, rest is fresh capital. Pensioners accept a 30% haircut and close the DB funds / crystallise the liability
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
There is no equivalency between both draws outlined above - since in the second draw everyone dies. It is probably fairer to describe it as a mutual loss. You’d have to be fairly far gone to think that such a ‘draw’ is a desired outcome.
But they are both draws, is my point. So a losing side CAN use a nuke to get a draw
Of course the second one, the score draw, total nuclear apocalypse, is a ridiculously insane outcome, but both sides end up the same. It's a draw
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine. I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.
I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.
What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.
It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.
I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.
His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.
I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.
There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:
1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;
2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.
There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.
Correction, 5 territories. There are 5 regions Russia has "annexed" that are to be liberated.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
If he wants a draw, he can get one. Withdraw from Kharkiv, Sevastopol, Melitupol etc and return to Russia's own borders antebellum.
He won't have expanded Russia's borders, but he won't have lost Moscow either.
If he pushes the button, he loses everything.
He will have expanded NATO's borders. No rowing back from that being a huge FAIL as an outcome of his SMO.
St. Petersburg is now about 40km from a nuke in Finland. Strategic genius my arse.
Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟♀️
Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.
But the Markets need to see the numbers adding up. Something has to give.
Yep. So she needs to reverse her Special Fiscal Event. The whole thing. Visible from Space.
Dragging her heels just makes this worse. She should have done an immediate reverse ferret and moved on.
And yet Labour are saying they'll keep the personal tax changes, which make up the majority of the event. So how do you square that circle?
I don't square the circle and presumably Labour don't need to. Liz Truss does.
They do if they win the election and are supposed to be a serious party with serious ideas for government?
Or are you saying they're not serious or they're lying to us?
This far out from an election they will simply do as all oppositions do - give broad brush ideas, sound competent, and work on the detail closer to once events dear boy have taken their course.
The next election is not "Labour have to be serious or are they lying to us". Its "the Tories aren't serious and are lying to us and everyone knows it except them, we need to get them out of office".
The simple truth as always is that there is no magic wand solutions for the growing deep-rooted problems we have as a society and an economy. The problem for the Tories is that they - and you backing them - think there is. Just being seen to disavow laughable mean-spirited brutalist economics will be enough for any opposition.
So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706
They’ve lost the moral high ground tho
There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”
Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition
Russia claims three civilians died.
And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.
It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.
You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?
The Russians found a remote controlled boat washed up on the beach in Sevastopol only a few weeks ago. Circumstantial evidence suggests that it contained some kind of explosive device & was Ukranian in origin, although the Russian military haven’t given any details.
So although a truck bomb is a plausible cause, it’s not the only possibility & a floating drone laden with explosives is definitely another option.
The more interesting point is that PB hysteria has reached the stage when merely saying "a truck bomb is a likely explanation, but we don't know" apparently makes you a Muscovite shill and a fucking appeaser
"And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes"
So use the evidence of your eyes. Where is there any external evidence that supports a massive blast on the carriageway? ANY?
All the special forces bods I have been reading have said "explosives under the roadway. Good job..."
Plus, a small thing. The Ukrainians are very quick to laud their departed heroes. If it was a balding 50's plumber from Lviv who had given his life for the greater cause, he would have been the subject of hagiography.
Yet not a peep.
"All the special forces bods I have been reading have said "explosives under the roadway."
Not all
"The most popular theory was a bomb blast from a white truck identified in online footage. “There was something in the truck that exploded,” said a structural engineer, now in a specialised branch of the Ukrainian military, who analysed the videos. “Something special."
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
Putin isn't a lunatic - all that he does is considered and rational from his perspective. His goal is to boost his position and his country's status. He is losing the war but can still claim a win with a brokered peace as he demanded at the annexation ceremony.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
He will not go nuclear.
I'm torn between the rational objective of getting a negotiated outcome with Putin in Ukraine's interest and thinking, fuck it, send him to the Hague.
Sadly I’m not sure we’ll ever see him at The Hague. The only way Putin leaves office IMHO are:
1. Pensioned off to his dacha and ‘looked after’ by his ‘protection officers’ (purely for his own protection, of course, don’t be silly he’s not under house arrest or anything, he’s just living out his retirement in seclusion and comfort).
2. Dead (of either natural or unnatural causes);
3. A small chance he might live out his days in exile, Idi Amin style, if the Russian government decides 1. is too much effort and they can find someone to take him.
4. Potentially in a Russian jail if it makes good sense for an incoming government to make an example of him.
I suspect voluntary retirement is probably beyond him now.
But it likely doesn’t suit any government who replaces Putin to extradite him for war crimes. Most incoming governments (either liberal or more repressive) need to keep the country together and that will be harder to do if you’re shipping out the former leader to be dealt with ‘externally’. If it’s politically advantageous to make an example of Putin you’ll try him in your own courts.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border wherever it ends up, give Marshall aid to UA but take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
Leon: "It's hard to shoot down missiles." Ukrainian soldier: NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports Ukrainian soldiers today shot down a cruise missile with an Igla MANPADS
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
It's a cheat code that gets you to a draw. The question is then whether it is a nil nil draw - the West reins in Ukraine, a melancholy peace deal is imposed, Ukraine is divided like Cold War Korea - or an entertaining high score draw - we all die
If he wants a draw, he can get one. Withdraw from Kharkiv, Sevastopol, Melitupol etc and return to Russia's own borders antebellum.
He won't have expanded Russia's borders, but he won't have lost Moscow either.
If he pushes the button, he loses everything.
He will have expanded NATO's borders. No rowing back from that being a huge FAIL as an outcome of his SMO.
St. Petersburg is now about 40km from a nuke in Finland. Strategic genius my arse.
NATO salesman of the millennia.
He’s really only got Ireland and Switzerland left to try for.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
One significant difference in 1945 is that no-one else had the technology. The Japanese didn't know exactly what it was, and how many the Americans could deploy. They recognized that there was simply no response.
One interesting reflection on WW2, though - Mass Observation recorded that the Blitz had a severely negative effect on the British population - had it gone on for longer, it might have broken public support for the war. However, when the Civilian bombing reduced dramatically, it had the opposite effect - it gave people belief that they could withstand it,
Ukraine has already been through *worse* than this earlier in the war, and come through. They are also being told (and will probably see over the next week or so) that this campaign can't be sustained at this level. So I would predict that, in the fairly short term, this will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Reports now of attacks on many more Ukranian cities this morning, for many of them the first attacks in months. Targets appear to be major infrastructure such as power plants and bridges.
Reports now of attacks on many more Ukranian cities this morning, for many of them the first attacks in months. Targets appear to be major infrastructure such as power plants and bridges.
Bridges are actually weirdly hard to knock out with missiles.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Basically you think the enemy commander is stupid, wicked, and flies into rages, and that unlike you he doesn't understand the value of money, right? I would laugh if this weren't so serious.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Yep. Close to a hundred expensive missiles, half of which were shot down so hit nothing, and the other half were inaccurate or hit random non-military targets in the city. Not something that’s going to disrupt life too much in Ukraine, nor diminish the determination of the Ukranian people to kick the enemy out of their country.
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
Leon: "It's hard to shoot down missiles." Ukrainian soldier: NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports Ukrainian soldiers today shot down a cruise missile with an Igla MANPADS
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Very risky to nail nukes on. Generally you would use bolts for safety reasons.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
One significant difference in 1945 is that no-one else had the technology. The Japanese didn't know exactly what it was, and how many the Americans could deploy. They recognized that there was simply no response.
One interesting reflection on WW2, though - Mass Observation recorded that the Blitz had a severely negative effect on the British population - had it gone on for longer, it might have broken public support for the war. However, when the Civilian bombing reduced dramatically, it had the opposite effect - it gave people belief that they could withstand it,
Ukraine has already been through *worse* than this earlier in the war, and come through. They are also being told (and will probably see over the next week or so) that this campaign can't be sustained at this level. So I would predict that, in the fairly short term, this will have the opposite of the intended effect.
In this context I wonder why nobody ever mentions the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, etc. I remember going through Cologne on the train in 1954; very similar to going through East London!
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
One significant difference in 1945 is that no-one else had the technology. The Japanese didn't know exactly what it was, and how many the Americans could deploy. They recognized that there was simply no response.
One interesting reflection on WW2, though - Mass Observation recorded that the Blitz had a severely negative effect on the British population - had it gone on for longer, it might have broken public support for the war. However, when the Civilian bombing reduced dramatically, it had the opposite effect - it gave people belief that they could withstand it,
Ukraine has already been through *worse* than this earlier in the war, and come through. They are also being told (and will probably see over the next week or so) that this campaign can't be sustained at this level. So I would predict that, in the fairly short term, this will have the opposite of the intended effect.
In this context I wonder why nobody ever mentions the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, etc. I remember going through Cologne on the train in 1954; very similar to going through East London!
There were, and I believe still are, people who claimed Dresden was a war crime.
They lose almost all their credibility by mostly being either ex-Nazis or getting their arguments from David Irving, but they are out there.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
Putin isn't a lunatic - all that he does is considered and rational from his perspective. His goal is to boost his position and his country's status. He is losing the war but can still claim a win with a brokered peace as he demanded at the annexation ceremony.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
He will not go nuclear.
I'm torn between the rational objective of getting a negotiated outcome with Putin in Ukraine's interest and thinking, fuck it, send him to the Hague.
Sadly I’m not sure we’ll ever see him at The Hague. The only way Putin leaves office IMHO are:
1. Pensioned off to his dacha and ‘looked after’ by his ‘protection officers’ (purely for his own protection, of course, don’t be silly he’s not under house arrest or anything, he’s just living out his retirement in seclusion and comfort).
2. Dead (of either natural or unnatural causes);
3. A small chance he might live out his days in exile, Idi Amin style, if the Russian government decides 1. is too much effort and they can find someone to take him.
4. Potentially in a Russian jail if it makes good sense for an incoming government to make an example of him.
I suspect voluntary retirement is probably beyond him now.
But it likely doesn’t suit any government who replaces Putin to extradite him for war crimes. Most incoming governments (either liberal or more repressive) need to keep the country together and that will be harder to do if you’re shipping out the former leader to be dealt with ‘externally’. If it’s politically advantageous to make an example of Putin you’ll try him in your own courts.
But if Putin is in the Hague in exchange for the lifting of sanctions?
Good God almighty, what a bunch of fucking spazmos we have reigning over us in ignominy. Notwithstanding the fact that, as is made clear by the linked article, solar tends to go on not particularly productive land, it isn't even as if it renders it totally unusable for agriculture. Solar farms often double as sheep pasture.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what's more likely to be behind this. The same as the reason why the Tories practically banned onshore wind years ago. Nimbies wetting their knickers about their precious views and their fucking house prices.
No, I do not think it is Nimbies against solar farms on agricultural land. The Farming Lobby perhaps?
It isn't even that. Farmers need revenue for their land and this is revenue. They aren't putting solar farms on fields that are otherwise producing crops / animals. What this is about is wazzock Tories who dislike "woke" which includes environmentalism which apparently means that despite the VERY real danger of brownouts this winter that we should further restrict our ability to produce power.
I did call them wazzocks didn't I? Complete and total fucking wazzocks. "We want to cut the red tape on planning" / "no no, you famers can't put solar panels up, we need more red tape on planning to stop you making productive use of your land".
Fuckers. And there are still a hardcore intending to vote for them.
You sound a bit angry and ill-informed. Solar panels are being put on perfectly cracking pasture land. Why do you think it has been counted as farmland for literally millennia if it is incapable of producing crops or animals?
If its perfectly good and productive pasture land that's more productive than farming solar energy then the farmers will get more money for that, so won't install the panels.
If the farmers are installing the panels, they presumably don't think that land is productive.
Who should we listen to on what land is productive and what isn't? Bureaucrats in Whitehall, or farmers making their own choice via their own expertise?
Don’t forget the government subsidies mean that, while rational by the farmers, the decision isn’t market driven
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
If you're looking to a WW2 attack on Japan for a comparison, isn't the firebombing of Tokyo a closer match? The nuclear bomb drops are pretty much incomparable with anything else for obvious reasons.
I have to say the modern day Tory party is a death cult.
Speaking to some Truss supporting activists and I was flagging up the damage she was causing and they were a bit blasé about the damage she is causing, they took the view that if she's as shit as the media says she and her economic policies then Starmer will have a toxic inheritance and the Tories would be back in 2029.
Tumbleweeds when I mentioned it was said whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
Good God almighty, what a bunch of fucking spazmos we have reigning over us in ignominy. Notwithstanding the fact that, as is made clear by the linked article, solar tends to go on not particularly productive land, it isn't even as if it renders it totally unusable for agriculture. Solar farms often double as sheep pasture.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what's more likely to be behind this. The same as the reason why the Tories practically banned onshore wind years ago. Nimbies wetting their knickers about their precious views and their fucking house prices.
No, I do not think it is Nimbies against solar farms on agricultural land. The Farming Lobby perhaps?
It isn't even that. Farmers need revenue for their land and this is revenue. They aren't putting solar farms on fields that are otherwise producing crops / animals. What this is about is wazzock Tories who dislike "woke" which includes environmentalism which apparently means that despite the VERY real danger of brownouts this winter that we should further restrict our ability to produce power.
I did call them wazzocks didn't I? Complete and total fucking wazzocks. "We want to cut the red tape on planning" / "no no, you famers can't put solar panels up, we need more red tape on planning to stop you making productive use of your land".
Fuckers. And there are still a hardcore intending to vote for them.
You sound a bit angry and ill-informed. Solar panels are being put on perfectly cracking pasture land. Why do you think it has been counted as farmland for literally millennia if it is incapable of producing crops or animals?
If its perfectly good and productive pasture land that's more productive than farming solar energy then the farmers will get more money for that, so won't install the panels.
If the farmers are installing the panels, they presumably don't think that land is productive.
Who should we listen to on what land is productive and what isn't? Bureaucrats in Whitehall, or farmers making their own choice via their own expertise?
Don’t forget the government subsidies mean that, while rational by the farmers, the decision isn’t market driven
You're right there is too much subsidising of food going on.
Subsidies for new solar were of course abolished about a decade ago.
So if the farmer is deciding unsubsidised solar is more productive than subsidised agriculture, then what does that tell us?
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
Go rewatch Threads, people survived the nuclear war, granted they were Northerners, not Southern softies like you.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
Go rewatch Threads, people survived the nuclear war, granted they were Northerners, not Southern softies like you.
And the dead rats for sex tradeoff which ends the film is normal for Manchester anyway.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
Go rewatch Threads, people survived the nuclear war, granted they were Northerners, not Southern softies like you.
If the North could survive Thatcher it could survive anything.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
Reports now of attacks on many more Ukranian cities this morning, for many of them the first attacks in months. Targets appear to be major infrastructure such as power plants and bridges.
Bridges are actually weirdly hard to knock out with missiles.
Yep, as has been demonstrated in Kherson. It’s easy to make a bridge temporarily impassable with HIMARS, but difficult to destroy it completely unless you’ve got a much bigger missile such as an ICBM. Bonus points for taking out the bridge repair team and their equipment, as they try and make it serviceable again, something that’s happened more than once in Kherson too.
That was what we’ve always said about the Kerch Bridge, there was no point in trying to get missiles close enough, what was needed was either a boatload of Semtex or a special operation with shaped charges.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
Go rewatch Threads, people survived the nuclear war, granted they were Northerners, not Southern softies like you.
And the dead rats for sex tradeoff which ends the film is normal for Manchester anyway.
Nah.
Do you know what Manchester and Las Vegas have in common?
The only places in the world where you can pay for sex with chips.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
They surrendered because they had no means of defence, they were outclassed, outgunned and defeated.
Ukraine do have a means of defence. They're repelling the invaders and regaining territory.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Because no one survives an all out nuclear war, even those who survive do not *really* survive. Who wants to spend the rest of a cruel and shattered life in an irradiated wasteland, eating rats? I would, genuinely, rather go in the first instant blast, in London. Many feel the same
Go rewatch Threads, people survived the nuclear war, granted they were Northerners, not Southern softies like you.
And the dead rats for sex tradeoff which ends the film is normal for Manchester anyway.
Russia is convinced the bridge bomb was a truck (I’m still not so sure), and blames Ukraine special forces (that bit is almost certainly true) for the attack.
Retaliatory strikes on Kiev early this morning, most of which were caught by air defences - but he doesn’t have a lot of long-range missiles left in stock, and has to use them sparingly.
Are they convinced, or is it just less embarrassing to Putin for it to be a fictional truck bomb rather than a Ukranian military operation which seems to have involved a boat carrying explosives.
You wouldn't trust a Russian if he told you the sky was blue. It's likely that they are lying. A waterborne raid on a high value asset carried out by an opponent with no navy would indicate astonishing levels of incompetence, but that would be no surprise given everything else we know of the tragi-comic pantomime that's been laid on by the Kremlin.
First sentence hits the nail on the head. I'd be fascinated to know how our few appeasers would come to any agreement with a regime that lies as easily at it breathes. It wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on
IIRC after it invaded and annexed Crimea didn't Russia claim that that was the extent of its territorial ambitions? It is so patently obvious that if Putin gets away with annexing 4 more bits of the Ukraine he will be after the Baltics in a couple of years. The only thing Putin understands is force, he needs to be defeated and humiliated. Anything else is just storing up trouble for the future.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
They surrendered because they had no means of defence, they were outclassed, outgunned and defeated.
Ukraine do have a means of defence. They're repelling the invaders and regaining territory.
Your brain is quite strange
When given conclusive evidence that X is X, you convince yourself that the X is a Y. And I think you honestly believe it
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
The Japanese were already trying for diplomacy via the Soviets (with the caveat that the Emperor could still stay in place) well before the nukes dropped. Yes, there were hard liners who wanted to continue, but if the Allies had said that the Emperor could stay in power with minor democratic changes, the Japanese would have likely surrendered well before. From what we know now it seems that the US wanted to test the bombs in combat and give a scare to the USSR more than the line that eventually came out of "ending the war quickly and with less loss of life". I've shared it here before, but I don't know how others find the medium, but there is a very thorough video essay on the topic that I found fascinating.
Good God almighty, what a bunch of fucking spazmos we have reigning over us in ignominy. Notwithstanding the fact that, as is made clear by the linked article, solar tends to go on not particularly productive land, it isn't even as if it renders it totally unusable for agriculture. Solar farms often double as sheep pasture.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what's more likely to be behind this. The same as the reason why the Tories practically banned onshore wind years ago. Nimbies wetting their knickers about their precious views and their fucking house prices.
No, I do not think it is Nimbies against solar farms on agricultural land. The Farming Lobby perhaps?
It isn't even that. Farmers need revenue for their land and this is revenue. They aren't putting solar farms on fields that are otherwise producing crops / animals. What this is about is wazzock Tories who dislike "woke" which includes environmentalism which apparently means that despite the VERY real danger of brownouts this winter that we should further restrict our ability to produce power.
I did call them wazzocks didn't I? Complete and total fucking wazzocks. "We want to cut the red tape on planning" / "no no, you famers can't put solar panels up, we need more red tape on planning to stop you making productive use of your land".
Fuckers. And there are still a hardcore intending to vote for them.
You sound a bit angry and ill-informed. Solar panels are being put on perfectly cracking pasture land. Why do you think it has been counted as farmland for literally millennia if it is incapable of producing crops or animals?
If its perfectly good and productive pasture land that's more productive than farming solar energy then the farmers will get more money for that, so won't install the panels.
If the farmers are installing the panels, they presumably don't think that land is productive.
Who should we listen to on what land is productive and what isn't? Bureaucrats in Whitehall, or farmers making their own choice via their own expertise?
Don’t forget the government subsidies mean that, while rational by the farmers, the decision isn’t market driven
You're right there is too much subsidising of food going on.
Subsidies for new solar were of course abolished about a decade ago.
So if the farmer is deciding unsubsidised solar is more productive than subsidised agriculture, then what does that tell us?
It tells us that subsidising food has been an important function of government for centuries, because hungry people have a habit of being angry people.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
The point the "but Russia have nukes" crowd are missing is that the Americans were comprehensively defeating and overpowering Japan already before the first even fell. It was a psychologically crushing cherry on top.
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
Putin isn't a lunatic - all that he does is considered and rational from his perspective. His goal is to boost his position and his country's status. He is losing the war but can still claim a win with a brokered peace as he demanded at the annexation ceremony.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
He will not go nuclear.
I'm torn between the rational objective of getting a negotiated outcome with Putin in Ukraine's interest and thinking, fuck it, send him to the Hague.
Sadly I’m not sure we’ll ever see him at The Hague. The only way Putin leaves office IMHO are:
1. Pensioned off to his dacha and ‘looked after’ by his ‘protection officers’ (purely for his own protection, of course, don’t be silly he’s not under house arrest or anything, he’s just living out his retirement in seclusion and comfort).
2. Dead (of either natural or unnatural causes);
3. A small chance he might live out his days in exile, Idi Amin style, if the Russian government decides 1. is too much effort and they can find someone to take him.
4. Potentially in a Russian jail if it makes good sense for an incoming government to make an example of him.
I suspect voluntary retirement is probably beyond him now.
But it likely doesn’t suit any government who replaces Putin to extradite him for war crimes. Most incoming governments (either liberal or more repressive) need to keep the country together and that will be harder to do if you’re shipping out the former leader to be dealt with ‘externally’. If it’s politically advantageous to make an example of Putin you’ll try him in your own courts.
But if Putin is in the Hague in exchange for the lifting of sanctions?
It would be better for Russia if Putin was jailed somewhere else. Jailing him inside Russia would make as much sense as sending Napoleon to Elba did, and with likely the same result.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
After Hiroshima, the military cling to the statements of the scientists that it might take years to make the next bomb. The Japanese physicists had a fairly good idea of the concept of a uranium bomb, but had nowhere near the resources to build one.
Nagasaki convinced them that the Americans had a production line.
What was also very important to the Japanese militarists, Hagakure fans that they were, was that the bomb removed their ability to die heroically. It’s one thing to send school children armed with bamboo spears to charge at American Marines as they step ashore… a single plane dropping a bomb just isn’t the same in A Beautiful Death world.
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
One significant difference in 1945 is that no-one else had the technology. The Japanese didn't know exactly what it was, and how many the Americans could deploy. They recognized that there was simply no response.
One interesting reflection on WW2, though - Mass Observation recorded that the Blitz had a severely negative effect on the British population - had it gone on for longer, it might have broken public support for the war. However, when the Civilian bombing reduced dramatically, it had the opposite effect - it gave people belief that they could withstand it,
Ukraine has already been through *worse* than this earlier in the war, and come through. They are also being told (and will probably see over the next week or so) that this campaign can't be sustained at this level. So I would predict that, in the fairly short term, this will have the opposite of the intended effect.
In this context I wonder why nobody ever mentions the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, etc. I remember going through Cologne on the train in 1954; very similar to going through East London!
There were, and I believe still are, people who claimed Dresden was a war crime.
They lose almost all their credibility by mostly being either ex-Nazis or getting their arguments from David Irving, but they are out there.
The bombing of Dresden would surely be considered a war crime nowadays, as would the bombing of Coventry, wouldn't it?
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
The big fear is how badly the react to new events.
I suspect the increase mortgage costs is what has doomed this government.
Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟♀️
Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.
But the Markets need to see the numbers adding up. Something has to give.
Yep. So she needs to reverse her Special Fiscal Event. The whole thing. Visible from Space.
Dragging her heels just makes this worse. She should have done an immediate reverse ferret and moved on.
And yet Labour are saying they'll keep the personal tax changes, which make up the majority of the event. So how do you square that circle?
I don't square the circle and presumably Labour don't need to. Liz Truss does.
They do if they win the election and are supposed to be a serious party with serious ideas for government?
Or are you saying they're not serious or they're lying to us?
What election? If one is called tomorrow, Labour will certainly need to say what it plans to do. If it's not till January 2025 (as was privately being predicted at the Tory conference), then of course not. Starmer won't know what he's going to have for breakfast then, let alone how to fix the economic mess that is likely to arise by then.
The Government, however, does need a plan for dealing with the CURRENT position. If they're baffled, then by all means call an election.
“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”
So in a fit of pique the Russians have burnt through ~$500million worth of missiles on non-military targets. Worse, these are missiles that they quite probably /cannot/ replace, meaning they will not be available to hit actual military targets in the future.
Putin continues to be a master strategist, clearly.
Not entirely non military. They have hit energy and power supplies, and key infrastructure (as well as kids' playgrounds). Given that Ukraine is totally mobilised for war - and is also attacking Russian infrastructure like bridges - those are legitimate targets
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
Nope. This is like the Nazis stopping bombing the RAF airfields in 1940 and beginning to Blitz London and the other cities instead. It is certainly a war crime, but it is also a military mistake. A huge mistake. You asked earlier how this ends short of UA victory. The answer is that we should do what we did with West Germany in 1955. Take Ukraine into NATO, seal the border and take all necessary steps to force the Putinist regime to collapse. Cold War 2 and with very likely the same result. However I do not see any kind of Russian victory is actually even possible.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
I have already said, this morning, that Russia is "the evil aggressor here"
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
No, it didn't work on Japan.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
It was terror bombing and it worked
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
After Hiroshima, the military cling to the statements of the scientists that it might take years to make the next bomb. The Japanese physicists had a fairly good idea of the concept of a uranium bomb, but had nowhere near the resources to build one.
Nagasaki convinced them that the Americans had a production line.
What was also very important to the Japanese militarists, Hagakure fans that they were, was that the bomb removed their ability to die heroically. It’s one thing to send school children armed with bamboo spears to charge at American Marines as they step ashore… a single plane dropping a bomb just isn’t the same in A Beautiful Death world.
I've shared this before, but I find it a really useful and interesting historical account of the thinking of both the Japanese command and the Allied commanders leading up to the bombings (I accept it is a long video and not everyone enjoys youtube as a format):
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
The big fear is how badly the react to new events.
I suspect the increase mortgage costs is what has doomed this government.
Yup. Sky currently running with the average 2 year fix hitting something like 6%
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
The big fear is how badly the react to new events.
I suspect the increase mortgage costs is what has doomed this government.
The thing is, we were muddling through and something needed to be done on the energy but economically there wasn't much complaint about Boris' government (Well compared to this new one). We simply needed to be shot of him whilst retaining the broad economic direction. It was quite simple for Truss. Boris boosterism without the lies.
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
No. All your list is really telling us is they are rubbish at strategy and spin, even things not their fault they end up owning. And your list makes them look weak, flapping about in whatever breeze.
So, in the last 24 hours or so we have seen Kwarteng bring forward his budget statement by the best part of a month to reassure the markets and allow the publication of a full OBR report; we have Truss backing off on the question of index linking benefits and we continue tp have positive noises about the NI protocol.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
The big fear is how badly the react to new events.
I suspect the increase mortgage costs is what has doomed this government.
The thing is, we were muddling through and something needed to be done on the energy but economically there wasn't much complaint about Boris' government (Well compared to this new one). We simply needed to be shot of him whilst retaining the broad economic direction. It was quite simple for Truss. Boris boosterism without the lies.
If you want the broad economic direction of Boris/Sunak (which decidedly was not working), you can get it from Sir Keir and Reeves.
One wonders why the people who believe nuclear war is imminent are spending time. on PB and not building/moving to a fallout shelter and buying up every iodine tablet and survival stuff out there?
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Very risky to nail nukes on. Generally you would use bolts for safety reasons.
Well, for IVY MIKE, they nailed the polythene layer lining the radiation case in place with copper nails.
“What did you do at work to day, dear?”
“Well, I banged on the largest nuclear bomb on the planet with a hammer, had lunch, then hammered in some more nails.”
Mind you, they gold plated the tamper. So got a commercial sign painter to plate the whole thing in gold leaf.
Comments
Defenestrate and send the LDs the bill.
That is actually the crucial thing here isn’t it - the moment Tory MPs votes enable Truss agenda, it becomes their agenda too, in voters eyes, in opposition comms - so even removal of Truss won’t move the polls much as they will all be tarnished with it.
I would like to see Ukraine returning to it’s pre-2014 borders but I suspect that is probably a leap too far right now.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/las-vegas-mass-stabbing-suspect-may-have-mental-health-issues-attorney-says-11665267746
eg this from @MarqueeMark
"And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes"
It’s a very old idea.
Both the Germans and Italians did a lot with such ideas in WWII
You could, moreover, argue that terror bombing, however disgusting, is a "legitimate strategy" - simply taking out loads of civilians so morale collapses and the enemy surrenders. It did not work on the Britz in the Blitz, it DID work on the Japs in Nagasaps
(No idea why I felt forced to write Nagasaps)
ANYWAY the point is Russia is not going entirely off-piste here. This hideous tactic can work. It worked for the Americans in 1945. But you have to go big
So a plan which didn't add up at the start is now full of holes and the funding gap AND the credibility gap are bigger than ever. So when KT and the Fuckup Gang try to carry on - as they still are - it demonstrates to the markets ever more that they haven't a clue what they are doing.
If they did a mea culpa, said "we can't get this through, we'll boot it back into the 2024 manifesto, meanwhile here are some more limited but costed growth plans" they might get away with it.
But they won't do that. Because they are the smartest people in the room and all the critics are woke leftist remoaners.
But then what do we expect from people most of whom are long-term Twitter users? I mean would you have a friend whose hobby, indulged 20 times a day, involved inscriptions on toilet walls?
That said, I have no idea whether the Kerch bridge attack was more successful than the attackers expected or less. If they blew something up from underneath, they didn't exactly put the bridge out of action for long. I seem to remember you're supposed to put explosive charges in two different places when blowing a bridge, but clearly the rules are different if you're using a vehicle whether submarine-launched or otherwise. On the other hand, if a charge was detonated inside the lorry then controlling the timing so that it blew exactly when the fuel train was passing was impressive, even if the train didn't fall from the bridge into the sea which would have made for much more dramatic footage.
The main success of the attack was psychological and (will be) escalatory.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221007-ukraine-faces-new-russian-threat-from-iran-made-kamikaze-drones
Much cheaper. Less than a million probably. So it depends how many Russia has imported, and can import
The use of drones would also explain the reports of missiles being "shot down". It is really quite hard to shoot down ballistic missiles, I think? Drones much easier
Russia is losing this war, not winning it. Using nukes doesn't necessarily change that. It isn't a cheat code to make you win from a losing position.
"Yes and if my auntie were my uncle, she'd have a pair of knackers."
Nowadays, she might well have.
Or he can go nuclear. Where the best case scenario sees Russian ambitions smashed for a generation and a new cold war making life in Russia very hard for its people and western profits / luxuries unavailable to its oligarchs. And a worst case scenario where much of Russia resembles melted black glass.
He will not go nuclear.
Dragging her heels just makes this worse. She should have done an immediate reverse ferret and moved on.
& yes, obviously rear-echelon infrastucture is a valid target in wartime but, when you’re extremely short on precision long range missiles, using them in this way when they could be used for much higher value (in military terms) targets seems like a mistake.
Correct me where wrong. But I am right.
He won't have expanded Russia's borders, but he won't have lost Moscow either.
If he pushes the button, he loses everything.
But I don't see it as "a mistake". Politically, Putin had to retaliate. And quite publicly and dramatically. The Russian people wanted revenge. A conventional missile attack was always a likely response. some of us predicted exactly this before today
I note that Kadyrov has stated on Telegram that he is now "100% happy" with Putin's SMO. Whether Kadyrov really believes that or not (I doubt it) Putin has got the nutters back on board. For now
All the special forces bods I have been reading have said "explosives under the roadway. Good job..."
Plus, a small thing. The Ukrainians are very quick to laud their departed heroes. If it was a balding 50's plumber from Lviv who had given his life for the greater cause, he would have been the subject of hagiography.
Yet not a peep.
Or are you saying they're not serious or they're lying to us?
I can already see it now.
"Yes, the Kerch bridge has been hit. We are investigating now (we haven't a clue, it'll take weeks to figure it out). One road lane is down but can be replaced easily enough (it can't, it'll take months IF we weren't a massively corrupt dictatorship), the other is slightly damaged but can take wheelled vehicles easily enough (chap with a push scooter just tried it, it was fine). We're going to try tracked vehicles soon, which we anticipate will be fine as well (we'll report if it IS okay, but not otherwise). One rail line is damaged but we'll have the blocked train moved soon (we won't) and inspect the damage. I'm sure the line will be fine though (it's not, its fucked. Burning fuel DOES melt steel despite what those 9/11 nutjobs claim). The other one is 100% operational still (we ran a slow recovery train through it.... it'll be fine)."
Complete bollocks, but both the listener (Putin) laps it up, and the teller eventually convinces themselves they aren't lying either.
You need them to cooperate in the process
Basically create a new company - equity owners get 20%, pensioners get 20%, rest is fresh capital. Pensioners accept a 30% haircut and close the DB funds / crystallise the liability
Of course the second one, the score draw, total nuclear apocalypse, is a ridiculously insane outcome, but both sides end up the same. It's a draw
St. Petersburg is now about 40km from a nuke in Finland. Strategic genius my arse.
The next election is not "Labour have to be serious or are they lying to us". Its "the Tories aren't serious and are lying to us and everyone knows it except them, we need to get them out of office".
The simple truth as always is that there is no magic wand solutions for the growing deep-rooted problems we have as a society and an economy. The problem for the Tories is that they - and you backing them - think there is. Just being seen to disavow laughable mean-spirited brutalist economics will be enough for any opposition.
Not all
"The most popular theory was a bomb blast from a white truck identified in online footage. “There was something in the truck that exploded,” said a structural engineer, now in a specialised branch of the Ukrainian military, who analysed the videos. “Something special."
https://www.ft.com/content/6e807a1a-f5b7-4e04-8770-6dec3835f13c
Now it looks like he might resign first...
Two people suggesting to me Truss overrode Kwarteng on this appointment
It was the PM who did a last minute u-turn
Romeo was well into appointing second perm sec process
Truss always less keen on Romeo for the job than Kwarteng
Where does this leave LT-KK? https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1579406647809970178
"I wouldn't get into any conversations she has had with individuals" when asked if PM offered him an Ambassadorship.
Very much not a denial on the second part.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1579432722220863490
1. Pensioned off to his dacha and ‘looked after’ by his ‘protection officers’ (purely for his own protection, of course, don’t be silly he’s not under house arrest or anything, he’s just living out his retirement in seclusion and comfort).
2. Dead (of either natural or unnatural causes);
3. A small chance he might live out his days in exile, Idi Amin style, if the Russian government decides 1. is too much effort and they can find someone to take him.
4. Potentially in a Russian jail if it makes good sense for an incoming government to make an example of him.
I suspect voluntary retirement is probably beyond him now.
But it likely doesn’t suit any government who replaces Putin to extradite him for war crimes. Most incoming governments (either liberal or more repressive) need to keep the country together and that will be harder to do if you’re shipping out the former leader to be dealt with ‘externally’. If it’s politically advantageous to make an example of Putin you’ll try him in your own courts.
Wes Clarke said this morning that Russian tactics were essentially the same as World War One. His contempt for the Russian armed forces was quite clear and his view was that the Russian high command is essentially murdering their own troops.
Unfortunately the scale of the war crimes against Ukrainian civilians is now even more depraved and utterly horrific. The UNHCR thinks about 30,000 dead, but this does not cover the missing, and no one knows what is being done to the Ukrainian children being taken to Russia. A long time ago I was peripherally involved in Bosnia Herzegovina where the casualties over the course of just over three and a half years were about 105,000 killed, about 30% of which were women and children. Something I found very difficult to deal with was the use of rape to terrorize and the fact that at least 30,000 women were raped still makes me sick to the stomach. This war is if anything more intense, and the direct violence against civilians is similarly brutal. The evidence of torture, rape and murder by the Russian armed forces is now clear, and I am afraid we must steal ourselves for some truly evil atrocities coming to light.
When this is over, I think that even the Russians will find it difficult to live with Russians.
Ukrainian soldier:
NOËL 🇪🇺 🇺🇦
@NOELreports
Ukrainian soldiers today shot down a cruise missile with an Igla MANPADS
https://mobile.twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1579432509913591808
He’s really only got Ireland and Switzerland left to try for.
One interesting reflection on WW2, though - Mass Observation recorded that the Blitz had a severely negative effect on the British population - had it gone on for longer, it might have broken public support for the war. However, when the Civilian bombing reduced dramatically, it had the opposite effect - it gave people belief that they could withstand it,
Ukraine has already been through *worse* than this earlier in the war, and come through. They are also being told (and will probably see over the next week or so) that this campaign can't be sustained at this level. So I would predict that, in the fairly short term, this will have the opposite of the intended effect.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-wants-to-make-cannabis-a-class-a-drug-7fpfdb3ql
Maybe the backbenchers don't need to topple Liz. The cabinet might do it for them
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1579397758007377920?t=go0kwtGuwrimgjkg-VQ18g&s=19
So I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. This terrible war is a moral disaster for humanity, and the criminal responsible is Vlad Putin
My point was more about military theory. There is a lazy supposition that terror bombing of civilians does not work (because it didn't work in the Blitz). Yet it does work. It worked on Japan
Whether it worked on Germany from 1942-45 is a moot point that historians have wrestled with for decades. Personally, I believe it did at least hasten the end of the war - in the Allies' favour
Still the anti-polymath appears are wrong on most things.
PS - Does anyone know why Vlad has used conventional weapons and not nukes today, I thought they were nailed on.
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for Japan. They were already defeated, they just refused to surrender yet. The nukes were the final straw, but it was already just a question of how they lose not if by then.
Nuclear weapons were another weapon that said to Japan that they were outclassed and had no hope of winning the war, it was not simply terror bombing.
They lose almost all their credibility by mostly being either ex-Nazis or getting their arguments from David Irving, but they are out there.
Speaking to some Truss supporting activists and I was flagging up the damage she was causing and they were a bit blasé about the damage she is causing, they took the view that if she's as shit as the media says she and her economic policies then Starmer will have a toxic inheritance and the Tories would be back in 2029.
Tumbleweeds when I mentioned it was said whoever won the 2010 general election would be out of power for a generation.
Subsidies for new solar were of course abolished about a decade ago.
So if the farmer is deciding unsubsidised solar is more productive than subsidised agriculture, then what does that tell us?
@pm215 is of course right that it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total but conventional obliteration of Tokyo also played a significant part
The Japanese were terrified that all of Japan was going to be similarly incinerated, they had no means of defence, and they surrendered. It worked
That was what we’ve always said about the Kerch Bridge, there was no point in trying to get missiles close enough, what was needed was either a boatload of Semtex or a special operation with shaped charges.
Do you know what Manchester and Las Vegas have in common?
The only places in the world where you can pay for sex with chips.
(Honourable mention to Glasgow.)
Ukraine do have a means of defence. They're repelling the invaders and regaining territory.
IIRC after it invaded and annexed Crimea didn't Russia claim that that was the extent of its territorial ambitions? It is so patently obvious that if Putin gets away with annexing 4 more bits of the Ukraine he will be after the Baltics in a couple of years. The only thing Putin understands is force, he needs to be defeated and humiliated. Anything else is just storing up trouble for the future.
When given conclusive evidence that X is X, you convince yourself that the X is a Y. And I think you honestly believe it
Nagasaki convinced them that the Americans had a production line.
What was also very important to the Japanese militarists, Hagakure fans that they were, was that the bomb removed their ability to die heroically. It’s one thing to send school children armed with bamboo spears to charge at American Marines as they step ashore… a single plane dropping a bomb just isn’t the same in A Beautiful Death world.
The catastrophically misjudged mini-budget did look terminal but is it just possible that this government might behave a bit more rationally going forward and avoid at least some of the obvious pitfalls?
I suspect the increase mortgage costs is what has doomed this government.
The Government, however, does need a plan for dealing with the CURRENT position. If they're baffled, then by all means call an election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
https://twitter.com/ulan_kurt/status/1579440408337481730?s=20&t=OEjErvIx2mdJ-uN8fa3dCA
It was quite simple for Truss. Boris boosterism without the lies.
Several tank columns are currently heading towards the Donetsk area."
https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1579438486788411392?s=20&t=OEjErvIx2mdJ-uN8fa3dCA
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/TVC-GB10Y/
Almost back to where we were before the BoE’s special monetary operation.
A fiscal headache awaits.
“What did you do at work to day, dear?”
“Well, I banged on the largest nuclear bomb on the planet with a hammer, had lunch, then hammered in some more nails.”
Mind you, they gold plated the tamper. So got a commercial sign painter to plate the whole thing in gold leaf.