also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
There some some concern from *Russian sources*, the other day, about 1.5 million winter uniforms having an existence failure.
It's possible that Belarus actually has stocks of winter equipment.
Well, that is until the Russians rob them at gunpoint....
Boris's face is in agony from all the laughing he is currently doing at the situation since he left.
Mine will be in agony from all the laughing when Boris has his Portillo moment!
"Were you up for Boris?"
Will he even stand again?
Boris made £150k for a 30 minute speech in the US last week, if he is not back as PM before the next general election I doubt he will bother to stand again given the likely heavy Tory defeat and loss of his seat.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
" we would evacuate him before the city fell."
Zelensky has that option before in late February, and he rejected it. At what was a critical time.
I can understand why a pro-Russian shill such as yourself might want to make Zelensky out to be a coward who would run away - but the only coward seen so far is Putin.
Zelensky might well believe that being a martyr is *exactly* what a defeated Ukraine needs.
The bit that doesn't make sense is that the missiles from Iran haven't arrived yet - and it takes time for new weapons to be integrated into a military.
Similarly, while some of the conscripts have already been dying on the frontline, most are still undergoing some petty stupid training - shooting past people's ears is bad movie stuff.
Going for it now suggest Putin is really desperate.
There was a report that Iranian soldiers were in Crimea to launch the drones from there, which would cut out the need to train Russians on how to use them. If the same happened with the missiles then they could be deployed much more quickly.
I see Tories have gone even madder and now plotting to replace Truss with "total untested at the highest levels" Wallace.
Do they ever learn.
Only Sunak or Hunt can be the replacement. Them's the breaks.
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Hunt has occupied a Great Office of State for about a year total. Sunak longer, but he was only put there to be a patsy when the previous one resigned. Wallace has been a senior minister for a number of years.
Truss was tested at high levels longer than any of them. Opposition leaders take over usually with no testing at highest levels.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
Russian rag-tag army of untrained and drunk middle aged draftees is not getting anywhere near Kyiv.
It is either a ruse to distract Ukr from Kherson or just a desperate gamble so that Putin can talk tough to the ultra nationalists now circling around his leadership's end of days.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
" we would evacuate him before the city fell."
Zelensky has that option before in late February, and he rejected it. At what was a critical time.
I can understand why a pro-Russian shill such as yourself might want to make Zelensky out to be a coward who would run away - but the only coward seen so far is Putin.
Zelensky might well believe that being a martyr is *exactly* what a defeated Ukraine needs.
The bit that doesn't make sense is that the missiles from Iran haven't arrived yet - and it takes time for new weapons to be integrated into a military.
Similarly, while some of the conscripts have already been dying on the frontline, most are still undergoing some petty stupid training - shooting past people's ears is bad movie stuff.
Going for it now suggest Putin is really desperate.
He wont attack until mid november at the earliest when kyiv starts to freeze. He may also see christmas as a good period when the west is focussed on other things
Boris's face is in agony from all the laughing he is currently doing at the situation since he left.
Mine will be in agony from all the laughing when Boris has his Portillo moment!
"Were you up for Boris?"
Will he even stand again?
Boris made £150k for a 30 minute speech in the US last week, if he is not back as PM before the next general election I doubt he will bother to stand again given the likely heavy Tory defeat and loss of his seat.
He will make serious money and like Thatcher still influence the party by ensuring only those he sees as loyalist his get his endorsement
In which case they may as well shut up shop. Johnson is a terminal cancer.
Thatcher ensured all future Tory leaders, Major, Hague, IDS and Howard had her endorsement until Cameron v Davis where she was neutral. She didn't care if the Tories lost as long as they lost as Thatcherites and kept out the Heseltine and Clarke Wets and traitors who toppled her.
Boris similarly won't care if the Tories are out of power for a decade or more as long as the assassins Sunak and Hunt and their allies are kept away from the leadership as his revenge
Boris's face is in agony from all the laughing he is currently doing at the situation since he left.
Mine will be in agony from all the laughing when Boris has his Portillo moment!
"Were you up for Boris?"
Will he even stand again?
Boris made £150k for a 30 minute speech in the US last week, if he is not back as PM before the next general election I doubt he will bother to stand again given the likely heavy Tory defeat and loss of his seat.
He will make serious money and like Thatcher still influence the party by ensuring only those he sees as loyalist his get his endorsement
In which case they may as well shut up shop. Johnson is a terminal cancer.
Thatcher ensured all future Tory leaders, Major, Hague, IDS and Howard had her endorsement until Cameron v Davis where she was neutral. She didn't care if the Tories lost as long as they lost as Thatcherites and kept out the Heseltine and Clarke Wets and traitors who toppled her.
Boris similarly won't care if the Tories are out of power for a decade or more as long as the assassins Sunak and Hunt and their allies are kept away from the leadership as his revenge
Suits me. Tories can’t govern anyway. They are quite dangerous, and shouldn’t be let anywhere near the levers of power.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
A VAT rise will definitely stoke inflation, impossible for it not to.
Back in the 1960s there was an enhanced level of purchase tax on fripperies the government deemed unnecessary. It could be reintroduced through VAT, leaving the great unwashed ... err ... unwashed.
VAT itself used to have basic and luxury rates. Basic was 8 per cent until Mrs Thatcher's government, having denied its intention to double VAT, increased it to 15 per cent. Come to think of it, VAT might have been 10 per cent under Heath until Labour cut it to 8 per cent and introduced the luxury rate. There's an idea for Reevesand Starmer: slash VAT rates.
So they were truthful when they denied an intention to double it?
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
With the caveat that they are looking at the current battlefield, but we don't yet know what strategy they'd use in a renewed attempt to take Kyiv.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
It’s been mooted only, and not as far as I can see, by the actual government.
Boris's face is in agony from all the laughing he is currently doing at the situation since he left.
Mine will be in agony from all the laughing when Boris has his Portillo moment!
"Were you up for Boris?"
Will he even stand again?
Boris made £150k for a 30 minute speech in the US last week, if he is not back as PM before the next general election I doubt he will bother to stand again given the likely heavy Tory defeat and loss of his seat.
He will make serious money and like Thatcher still influence the party by ensuring only those he sees as loyalist his get his endorsement
In which case they may as well shut up shop. Johnson is a terminal cancer.
Thatcher ensured all future Tory leaders, Major, Hague, IDS and Howard had her endorsement until Cameron v Davis where she was neutral. She didn't care if the Tories lost as long as they lost as Thatcherites and kept out the Heseltine and Clarke Wets and traitors who toppled her.
Boris similarly won't care if the Tories are out of power for a decade or more as long as the assassins Sunak and Hunt and their allies are kept away from the leadership as his revenge
Are you suggesting Boris Johnson will have the lasting influence of Thatcher?
That would be convicted criminal Jamie Wallis n’est pas? No wonder he’s desperate to keep his seat.
Yes. Never mind the fact that the points made were perfectly valid - far better to use his conviction for killing lampposts whilst wearing a skirt to prove that no one should listen.
I mean, lampposts!!!!!!! Standard are slipping. Tories are supposed to be done for sex gaffes and offences are they not? Pincher by name, pincher by nature sort of thing.
Whacking street furniture just lets the side down...
It could have been a child, not a lamppost.
But it was not a child. It was a lamppost
Whataboutery++;
Boris Johnson MIGHT have injured a small child IF he'd sat on the tyke.
Instead, all he did was set a VERY bad example for Brit kiddies
Something creepy and tragic about this short video.
🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker @UAWeapons #Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
His end-game is for their *not* to be a NATO. Russia de facto or de jure control over most of Europe, without NATO sticking its nose in. That is what he has been working towards for a decade or more.
Unfortunately for him, it looks like NATO is stronger after his shenanigans - and potentially larger, with new countries directly bordering Russia.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
Much is unknown in war, but the results are hard to hide.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
" we would evacuate him before the city fell."
Zelensky has that option before in late February, and he rejected it. At what was a critical time.
I can understand why a pro-Russian shill such as yourself might want to make Zelensky out to be a coward who would run away - but the only coward seen so far is Putin.
Zelensky might well believe that being a martyr is *exactly* what a defeated Ukraine needs.
The bit that doesn't make sense is that the missiles from Iran haven't arrived yet - and it takes time for new weapons to be integrated into a military.
Similarly, while some of the conscripts have already been dying on the frontline, most are still undergoing some petty stupid training - shooting past people's ears is bad movie stuff.
Going for it now suggest Putin is really desperate.
It is a race: can Russia mobilise its troops and take territory before the civilised world stops buffing its nails and starts sending loads of superior kit in to aid the Ukrainians?
Another factor is the effect all of this is having on Russia's economy and its internal politics. Frankly, Russia and Putin may not have six months to wait until spring.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
And extending the borders with NATO had he taken over Ukraine. And all his talk about how it is not a real country meaning as an excuse it wears thin.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
The Russians are quite good at state repression. I wouldn't be so assured that Ukrainians would be able to fight back and win once fully occupied.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
That pathetic client journalist Tim Shipman is being torn a new one on Twitter.
If you want to know what’s wrong with Britain, start with the delusion enablers in the media like Shipman.
I'm a big fan and admirer of Tim Shipman.
What's your beef with him?
He’s a client journalist, for the Tory populist wing.
Sadly, the British media is stuffed full of them. They spend all day opining what *should* happen, and zero time analysing what *has* happened.
Shipman is by no means the most egregious, but he is still one.
We need to look at the systemic roots of British dysfunction; the media is a massive issue.
One thing that needs addressing is the use of unattributed quotes to create a narrative. Some of them are implausible enough to be suspicious and it would be very easy for someone to do a Johann Hari.
Something creepy and tragic about this short video.
🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker @UAWeapons #Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
TASS haven't been reporting statements of that kind. They probably reported Putin saying Ukraine owes its existence to Lenin, but that was mainly about bolstering morale I think.
They report things such as Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov saying that NATO has now got itself involved in the conflict and that this involvement is causing Russia an additional burden and making Russia mobilise its "economic and other" forces.
Which is quite interesting, given Iran and the 1987 global market crash.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
The Russians are quite good at state repression. I wouldn't be so assured that Ukrainians would be able to fight back and win once fully occupied.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
Population of Russia: 144 million Population of Ukraine: 44 million Population of Chechnya: 1.3 million
The scale is very different. As is the access to the 'west' via adjoining countries.
That pathetic client journalist Tim Shipman is being torn a new one on Twitter.
If you want to know what’s wrong with Britain, start with the delusion enablers in the media like Shipman.
I'm a big fan and admirer of Tim Shipman.
What's your beef with him?
He’s a client journalist, for the Tory populist wing.
Sadly, the British media is stuffed full of them. They spend all day opining what *should* happen, and zero time analysing what *has* happened.
Shipman is by no means the most egregious, but he is still one.
We need to look at the systemic roots of British dysfunction; the media is a massive issue.
One thing that needs addressing is the use of unattributed quotes to create a narrative. Some of them are implausible enough to be suspicious and it would be very easy for someone to do a Johann Hari.
Absolutely. Although I don’t know what the answer is to this specific problem.
It’s by no means a Tory only “problem”. We all remember the New Labour years.
However, it seems more acute now, given Twitter etc.
Vast swathes of the British media are essentially political actors, cheerleading, hope casting and where necessary fabricating the just convenient narrative for their team.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
The Russians are quite good at state repression. I wouldn't be so assured that Ukrainians would be able to fight back and win once fully occupied.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
Yes its easy to be brave from the safety of the west but imagine if you had seen your family tortured by Russias security forces...others you know also have their family tortured....how long do you resist....
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
Freedman fils.
In that case, I think we should ignore it for the moment. Admittedly they've enacted some of his dumb ideas in the past, but surely even Truss isn't so stupid as to listen to him now?
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
If, God forbid, Russia were ever to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I think they'd do it either on an unequivocally military target (like an airbase) or on a totally unpopulated one.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
The Russians are quite good at state repression. I wouldn't be so assured that Ukrainians would be able to fight back and win once fully occupied.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
Population of Russia: 144 million Population of Ukraine: 44 million Population of Chechnya: 1.3 million
The scale is very different. As is the access to the 'west' via adjoining countries.
True. The populations don't match but the security service may well be willing to do very horrible things.
Fighting back is hard if your family is broken up and deported to deepest Siberia at the word of a collaborator.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
You seem to think raving loonies who want to conquer Kiev because of supposed traditions going back to Kievan Rus in the 9th century would say hey no don't irradiate Kiev or cause too much damage to the buildings, because that's our holy place innit.
General rule is to start with the assumption that the most batsh*t ideas coming out of Russia are being put out by the ~KGB.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
If, God forbid, Russia were ever to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I think they'd do it either on an unequivocally military target (like an airbase) or on a totally unpopulated one.
Why?
Leaving aside how far any target of a nuclear weapon could be purely military, that would be completely out of character. Almost all of this war so far has been directed at civilians.
And blowing it up on an 'unpopulated' target, even if there is one, would merely look silly.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
You seem to think raving loonies who want to conquer Kiev because of supposed traditions going back to Kievan Rus in the 9th century would say hey no don't irradiate Kiev or cause too much damage to the buildings, because that's our holy place innit.
Boris's face is in agony from all the laughing he is currently doing at the situation since he left.
Mine will be in agony from all the laughing when Boris has his Portillo moment!
"Were you up for Boris?"
Will he even stand again?
Boris made £150k for a 30 minute speech in the US last week, if he is not back as PM before the next general election I doubt he will bother to stand again given the likely heavy Tory defeat and loss of his seat.
He will make serious money and like Thatcher still influence the party by ensuring only those he sees as loyalist his get his endorsement
You are deluded HY. He was the architect of his own downfall. A very bad man who put personal ambition before party and country. It will be a very sad day for our nation if this Charlatan ever gets his filthy fat fingers on the levers of power again. The Conservative Party would do well to ensure wherever he is, it is nowhere near Westminster.
I suspect there are several more chapters discussing his private life and financial dealings yet to be written. The history books will not tell a positive story of Johnson's tenure as Prime Minister.
Something creepy and tragic about this short video.
🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker @UAWeapons #Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.
This might be VERY art-house - but maybe an homage to Werner Herzog's film "Even Dwarves Started Small"?
(The vehicle-in-circles scene was inspired by an incident that occurred when Herzog worked as a steward at the Munich Oktoberfest as a young man. Part of his duty was ensuring that drunk patrons did not attempt to drive their cars home, so when a drunk man insisted that he was capable of driving, Herzog got into his car with him, placed the steering wheel on full lock, then got out of his car. The man passed out and the car continued to drive in a circle until it ran out of petrol.)
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
His end-game is for their *not* to be a NATO. Russia de facto or de jure control over most of Europe, without NATO sticking its nose in. That is what he has been working towards for a decade or more.
Unfortunately for him, it looks like NATO is stronger after his shenanigans - and potentially larger, with new countries directly bordering Russia.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
What would they do if they get to Kyiv? Ukraine isn't going to surrender. Even if they get into the city they'll just be chewed up.
This is where I again ask "What is meant by 'win' for both sides?"
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
The Russians are quite good at state repression. I wouldn't be so assured that Ukrainians would be able to fight back and win once fully occupied.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
Population of Russia: 144 million Population of Ukraine: 44 million Population of Chechnya: 1.3 million
The scale is very different. As is the access to the 'west' via adjoining countries.
True. The populations don't match but the security service may well be willing to do very horrible things.
Fighting back is hard if your family is broken up and deported to deepest Siberia at the word of a collaborator.
Also look at the areas the Russian troops would have to maintain control over: Chechnya area : 17,300 square kilometres Ukraine area: 603,550 square kilometres
But in some ways this is all irrelevant, as there is a larger question: even if Putin maintains such a hideous regime as to subdue Ukraine, such actions will be very visible to other countries. How would such evil cause us to reduce sanctions and give Russia the leading presence on the world stage that Putin desires?
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
The US has made it quite clear that any nuclear option will be responded to. The conventional destruction of Russian army, navy, air force and a chunk of their strategic missiles would follow within days at most, and probably hours. NATO conventional forces are quite strong enough to stop the invasion altogether.
As for the situation in Belarus. Most of the border areas are in the Pripyat marshes which means that attacks need to be made through a small number of choke points and heavy equipment can get stuck very easily, especially as there has been quite a bit of rain in the past few days. The Belarusian army is ranked 46th in the world and has zero combat experience, and there is a real risk that they turn on their "allies"/occupiers and their government if pushed too far.
So, without being complacent, any attack from the north is either a feint or stupid.
It is said that Putin´s KGB trainers complained that he had "a diminished sense of danger", so the intelligence assessment is that he is not necessarily cautious, and indeed has taken several high stakes gambles, including, of course his decision to go all in for his latest invasion of Ukraine, and to continue to double down, even when caution would suggest a less aggressive policy mix.
Meanwhile as the CPC Congress kicks off in Beijing, there may be concern that if Xi Jinping seizes even more power for himself, at a time when Covid, the internal banking crisis and various other problems are creating a serious crisis in China, that Xi may allow Putin to escalate further as a distraction for the West so that Taiwan is reduced as a priority.
What is happening in the great hall of the people is probably more relevant than what is happening in Belarus.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
If, God forbid, Russia were ever to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I think they'd do it either on an unequivocally military target (like an airbase) or on a totally unpopulated one.
Why?
Leaving aside how far any target of a nuclear weapon could be purely military, that would be completely out of character. Almost all of this war so far has been directed at civilians.
And blowing it up on an 'unpopulated' target, even if there is one, would merely look silly.
NATO powers would say it wasn't an airbase, or wasn't only an airbase, but was full of maternity hospitals and children's playgrounds.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
If, God forbid, Russia were ever to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, I think they'd do it either on an unequivocally military target (like an airbase) or on a totally unpopulated one.
Why?
Leaving aside how far any target of a nuclear weapon could be purely military, that would be completely out of character. Almost all of this war so far has been directed at civilians.
And blowing it up on an 'unpopulated' target, even if there is one, would merely look silly.
NATO powers would say it wasn't an airbase, or wasn't only an airbase, but was full of maternity hospitals and children's playgrounds.
I doubt it. Not unless it was.
But since the Russians appear to have only managed to successfully hit one airbase in the whole war while destroying literally thousands of hospitals, schools and playgrounds I would say the odds are a somewhat less precise weapon like a nuke wouldn't hit a specifically military target.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Such an act by Putin will be his last act on earth.
Because you personally are going to travel to Moscow and exercise ninja assassin skills against him, or because you think we will nuke Moscow and the 12.6m on average rather innocent people who live there, with you cheering the whole thing on? After that oath about First doing no harm?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Zaporizhzhia is a different oblast.
Before making silly comments, please check a map. You will find the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is on the same river as Kherson and not far away.
And that Kherson is under siege and likely to be retaken by Ukraine fairly soon.
Incidentally, I think the sabotage at Zaporizhzhia is designed on the same lines as the nuclear threats. To make people *think* it will go up, while not actually going up.
The problem is the Russians have demonstrated such an extraordinary level of stupidity and incompetence you have to wonder if they might misjudge this with unfortunate consequences.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
Ah yes, good call. I'd forgotten his claim that teachers and nurses were all on the lash at the height of Covid lockdowns. Plonker.
Go for it. Stand against him as a "Sober Ex-Teacher" independent.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Reading a suggestion this evening that the Government may square its fiscal circle by hiking VAT - as a means to avoid swingeing spending cuts without having to butcher what remains of the Truss-Kwarteng tax cuts.
Makes sense on one level. If you don't want to ramp income tax, NI, or to impose higher taxation on assets (whacking Tory donors and the core vote,) then it's what's left. OTOH it runs the risk of stoking inflation (providers of goods and services will likely try to hike prices to make good their losses) and will - you've guessed it - disproportionately hammer the poor.
No easy choices.
Most providers of goods and services can reclaim their VAT. It’s only the end customer who gets whacked for the full amount
Genius. The cost of living crisis is hitting the consumer, so lets hit them harder with a VAT increase... This is a government that is too stupid to breathe.
I’ve no idea who @ping source is, but it’s harsh to be so critical about the government over something they haven’t done or said
It was merely mooted by @ydoethur’s bete noir on Twitter. For once, the govt are innnocent.
When you say 'bete noir' do you mean Cummings, Freedman, Gove, Spielman, Acland-Hood, Nick Gibb, Nicky Morgan, Michael Fabricant or Gavin Willamson?
I detected a theme there. Just an educated guess. Then 'Michael Fabricant' threw me off the scent. Did he used to work for the DfE or something, or did you just add him as a random arsehole?
He is a random arsehole, notably the random lying arsehole who falsely claimed teachers and nurses were having boozy parties at the same time as those drunken cretins in Whitehall were.
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
For the Wig Party?
That would be ironic, given I am actually bald.
I think your campaign would be hair today, gone tommorow.
“Belarusian Minister says country gets ready to ‘defend motherland,’ receives weapons for rescue workers.
Emergency Situations Minister Vadim Sinyavsky told state-controlled media that the ministry had already received the weapons and placed them in the armory.”
Look. I yield to no one in belief that Putin's an idiot, but he isn't going to nuke Belarus.
That's about shelter from conventional bombing by the Ukrainians, who would hopefully be able to take out every single one of Belarus' government buildings and Lukashenko's stolen private residences in the first hour of the war.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I thought that was just the crazy nationalists like Dugin. I am sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire and I am sure he hates Ukraine, but I don't believe that he actually invades other countries to fulfil Dugin's visions. I believe much more in his pathological desire not to be encircled, following his experiences of the collapse of the GDR.
No, it's not just crazy nationalists like Dugin, and have you not noticed that they have annexed all the land they currently hold (and more)?
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
I still think you are confusing those who commentate, propagandise, and provide a nationalistic framework for actions, with the actual motivation for those actions. The British Empire had plenty of people writing about 'the white man's burden' and all that, but any study of it shows it grew sporadically and often accidentally for all sorts of different reasons, and wasn't part of any grand plan.
That's a ridiculous argument: "The British Empire grew haphazardly, therefore Putin probably doesn't have a grand expansionist plan."
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
No, it's not a ridiculous argument at all. Actual invasions and sticking your flag up a pole are usually a sign of an opposing power challenging your authority in a space. If you're the overwhelmingly dominant power, the territory falls in to your sphere of influence, and you don't need to go to the trouble of invading and garrisoning it. That's really also the case with Ukraine - there was a strong challenge to Putin's authority there from the West. Do you really think Putin would have wanted to colonise Ukraine if his chosen President was still in power?
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
If you agree that his desired outcome is the annexation of Ukraine (regardless of the events that triggered this) then what is the point of trying to absolve him of having expansionist motivations? It's as if your worldview depends on seeing him as a purely rational chess player who has been forced into his actions by the west.
Countries that recently closed their embassies and/or urged their citizens to evacuate from Ukraine
- China - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Uzbekistan - Turkmenistan - Serbia - Tajikistan - Belarus - Egypt
Quite a list. Something is clearly brewing
Looks like it.
All apart from Serbia, Belarus, and Turkmenistan are members of the CICA which recently had a summit in Astana. Even Belarus and Turkmenistan are observer states in CICA. Egypt is a full member.
“Belarusian Minister says country gets ready to ‘defend motherland,’ receives weapons for rescue workers.
Emergency Situations Minister Vadim Sinyavsky told state-controlled media that the ministry had already received the weapons and placed them in the armory.”
Russia's actions very much look like a last roll of the dice: throwing new conscripts and all remaining reserves into the front.
Essentially, the goal is to defeat Ukraine before Russia runs out of both the will and the resources to fight.
If Russia could get to Kyiv, and force a peace, the war might yet be saved.
But it's a massive gamble. It's a poker player, on tilt, going all in on a pair of sixes
It reminds me rather of the Battle of the Bulge, where the Germans hoped to win a battle, inflict grievous losses, and force the West out the war.
The most likely outcome is that Ukraine repulses the attacks. But anything is possible. Russia may well have learnt from its mistakes. The Ukrainians may be stretched too thin.
If Putin fails, then it's hard to think his army will be in any position for further offensive operations. And attackers normally suffer much worse casualties than defenders. The Ukrainians are now better supplied, more numerous and experienced.
The next few weeks will be crucial, but it seems far from impossible that - if the attack fails - then the end will be near for the invasion.
Putin still has tactical nukes as a last resort. He is by nature a cautious man though so will not act impulsively and im pretty sure if he used nukes he would clear it with china first
To what end?
The military analysts can see no strategic purpose to dropping a couple of battlefield nukes.
The only thing to use nukes on are cities. UKR doesn't concentrate troops like it is the battle of Kursk.
Well in that case nuke Kyiv as an all in shock and awe tactic gambling the western public will panic and western unity crumbles
Kyiv is regarded by Russian nationalists as the cradle of Russian civilisation. Although that isn't strictly speaking true it's a very powerful myth and one reason why they want to re-conquer Ukraine.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
Not Kherson. It was founded by Catherine the Great and they have a tenuous hold on at the moment, so nuking it would be bizarre.
And that has stopped him when, exactly?
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
Zaporizhzhia is a different oblast.
Before making silly comments, please check a map. You will find the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is on the same river as Kherson and not far away.
Why not just admit that you named the wrong place?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
Perhaps he knows more than you and I do.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
His track record is so abysmal that I think we can be fairly sure that any decision to open up a front from Belarus will backfire as badly as everything else he has done.
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
Comments
Johnson is a terminal cancer.
Truss was tested at high levels longer than any of them. Opposition leaders take over usually with no testing at highest levels.
It would be seen as a partisan move just to cause an election.
Pillock.
It is either a ruse to distract Ukr from Kherson or just a desperate gamble so that Putin can talk tough to the ultra nationalists now circling around his leadership's end of days.
If you want to know what’s wrong with Britain, start with the delusion enablers in the media like Shipman.
Boris similarly won't care if the Tories are out of power for a decade or more as long as the assassins Sunak and Hunt and their allies are kept away from the leadership as his revenge
With entirely disastrous results.
Tories can’t govern anyway.
They are quite dangerous, and shouldn’t be let anywhere near the levers of power.
Say Russia magically gains control of Ukraine tomorrow. All Ukraine's territory - including large cities such as Kyiv and Lviv - are under its control. Will the population *feel* Russian? Will they bend under Russian will, especially after the last seven months?
No. Russia will face uprisings of various scales within the territory. To maintain control, they would have to put massive amounts of troops and resources into the country. Which brings me onto my next point:
In this scenario, why would the 'west' remove sanctions on Russia? We well know that Putin's expansionist mindset includes other countries in the Baltics and elsewhere. even if he automagically gains Ukraine, why would we remove sanctions? Gas? He has already proven a massively unreliable partner and supplier. Threat of nukes? We know he would just threaten them if we stop him rolling into the Baltics. Or Poland.
If you define 'win' as a 'stronger' Russia than in February 2022, then I find it hard to imagine a route towards that 'win'. He *may* gain territory - and that is looking unlikely in a substantive sense - but his country will be much weaker for decades.
BTW (also FYI) Boris Johnson = Charlie Haughey, but without the upside.
What's your beef with him?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5NN5S9sPFM
🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker
@UAWeapons
#Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1581721575597883392
Unfortunately for him, it looks like NATO is stronger after his shenanigans - and potentially larger, with new countries directly bordering Russia.
Oh dear. How Sad. Never mind.
He might have a stronger fifth column now. He might have new improved cyber. Perhaps US intelligence on Russian nuclear movements or the absence of them is less than perfect. It is possible that Ukraine really has overstretched. Perhaps he wants NATO to make a wrong move.
Sadly, the British media is stuffed full of them.
They spend all day opining what *should* happen, and zero time analysing what *has* happened.
Shipman is by no means the most egregious, but he is still one.
We need to look at the systemic roots of British dysfunction; the media is a massive issue.
If you think it's about NATO, why is Putin so relaxed about Finland joining?
Another factor is the effect all of this is having on Russia's economy and its internal politics. Frankly, Russia and Putin may not have six months to wait until spring.
Such an act by Putin will be his last act on earth.
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, is illuminating in the subjugation of an incredibly tough individualistic people.
They report things such as Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov saying that NATO has now got itself involved in the conflict and that this involvement is causing Russia an additional burden and making Russia mobilise its "economic and other" forces.
Which is quite interesting, given Iran and the 1987 global market crash.
He's a go-to journalist for me because I know he'll cover both sides fairly, despite not being shy about his own centrist politics.
Population of Ukraine: 44 million
Population of Chechnya: 1.3 million
The scale is very different. As is the access to the 'west' via adjoining countries.
Although I don’t know what the answer is to this specific problem.
It’s by no means a Tory only “problem”.
We all remember the New Labour years.
However, it seems more acute now, given Twitter etc.
Vast swathes of the British media are essentially political actors, cheerleading, hope casting and where necessary fabricating the just convenient narrative for their team.
Nuking it therefore would be a catastrophic own goal by Putin which would probably lead to his very speedy removal and appointment with a bayonet up the arse hole.
If they nuke any city in Ukraine it would be either Lviv or Kherson, but neither seems likely.
I’m afraid we’ll just have to disagree on his bias.
Fighting back is hard if your family is broken up and deported to deepest Siberia at the word of a collaborator.
General rule is to start with the assumption that the most batsh*t ideas coming out of Russia are being put out by the ~KGB.
In any case if you are "sure Putin would love a vast(er) Russian empire" and you know that he exercises strong control over what goes on Russian federal TV channels, is it not likely that the content they pump out ties in with his plans?
Leaving aside how far any target of a nuclear weapon could be purely military, that would be completely out of character. Almost all of this war so far has been directed at civilians.
And blowing it up on an 'unpopulated' target, even if there is one, would merely look silly.
I suspect there are several more chapters discussing his private life and financial dealings yet to be written. The history books will not tell a positive story of Johnson's tenure as Prime Minister.
(The vehicle-in-circles scene was inspired by an incident that occurred when Herzog worked as a steward at the Munich Oktoberfest as a young man. Part of his duty was ensuring that drunk patrons did not attempt to drive their cars home, so when a drunk man insisted that he was capable of driving, Herzog got into his car with him, placed the steering wheel on full lock, then got out of his car. The man passed out and the car continued to drive in a circle until it ran out of petrol.)
NATO would not go to all out nuclear war if Putin nuked a Ukrainian city. We have no intention of letting our children die for Lviv
Macron was a fool for spelling it out as he did, nonetheless he was not lying
Chechnya area : 17,300 square kilometres
Ukraine area: 603,550 square kilometres
But in some ways this is all irrelevant, as there is a larger question: even if Putin maintains such a hideous regime as to subdue Ukraine, such actions will be very visible to other countries. How would such evil cause us to reduce sanctions and give Russia the leading presence on the world stage that Putin desires?
It would not.
As for the situation in Belarus. Most of the border areas are in the Pripyat marshes which means that attacks need to be made through a small number of choke points and heavy equipment can get stuck very easily, especially as there has been quite a bit of rain in the past few days. The Belarusian army is ranked 46th in the world and has zero combat experience, and there is a real risk that they turn on their "allies"/occupiers and their government if pushed too far.
So, without being complacent, any attack from the north is either a feint or stupid.
It is said that Putin´s KGB trainers complained that he had "a diminished sense of danger", so the intelligence assessment is that he is not necessarily cautious, and indeed has taken several high stakes gambles, including, of course his decision to go all in for his latest invasion of Ukraine, and to continue to double down, even when caution would suggest a less aggressive policy mix.
Meanwhile as the CPC Congress kicks off in Beijing, there may be concern that if Xi Jinping seizes even more power for himself, at a time when Covid, the internal banking crisis and various other problems are creating a serious crisis in China, that Xi may allow Putin to escalate further as a distraction for the West so that Taiwan is reduced as a priority.
What is happening in the great hall of the people is probably more relevant than what is happening in Belarus.
- China
- Kazakhstan
- Kyrgyzstan
- Uzbekistan
- Turkmenistan
- Serbia
- Tajikistan
- Belarus
- Egypt
Quite a list. Something is clearly brewing
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1581178851006517248?s=20&t=03Fk9MRjSeL9Zla5oDsZ5w
It's awfully tempting to stand against the bastard as an Independent at the next election just so I can heckle him at every meeting.
It was a reference to sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, by the way.
But since the Russians appear to have only managed to successfully hit one airbase in the whole war while destroying literally thousands of hospitals, schools and playgrounds I would say the odds are a somewhat less precise weapon like a nuke wouldn't hit a specifically military target.
And of course Putin will be happy to energise his public with nationalist tripe - that doesn't mean that's what motivates his own actions.
It's a clean machine.
And that Kherson is under siege and likely to be retaken by Ukraine fairly soon.
Incidentally, I think the sabotage at Zaporizhzhia is designed on the same lines as the nuclear threats. To make people *think* it will go up, while not actually going up.
The problem is the Russians have demonstrated such an extraordinary level of stupidity and incompetence you have to wonder if they might misjudge this with unfortunate consequences.
Go for it. Stand against him as a "Sober Ex-Teacher" independent.
Not a patch on anything made at Derby. Or Crewe.
“Belarus now advising citizens about available bunkers "in the event of an emergency". #NuclearWar #UkraineRussiaWar”
https://twitter.com/geopol_monitor/status/1581734963631689728?s=46&t=XgCs9Z1_Lwm43YmOU6u1vA
Strategic Genius? Um, not really.
Emergency Situations Minister Vadim Sinyavsky told state-controlled media that the ministry had already received the weapons and placed them in the armory.”
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1581727074586615809?s=46&t=XgCs9Z1_Lwm43YmOU6u1vA
That's about shelter from conventional bombing by the Ukrainians, who would hopefully be able to take out every single one of Belarus' government buildings and Lukashenko's
stolenprivate residences in the first hour of the war.All apart from Serbia, Belarus, and Turkmenistan are members of the CICA which recently had a summit in Astana. Even Belarus and Turkmenistan are observer states in CICA. Egypt is a full member.