One year on – politicalbetting.com

System

One year on – politicalbetting.com

The Ukraine war is one year old. Here’s the scoreboard from a year of madness. 

Read the full story here

HYUFD

Hard to see this War ending unless Putin goes or is removed unfortunately. It is now heading for WW1 style stalemate

Sunil_Prasannan

rcs1000 said:

And Korea was North Koreans fighting for their country against foreign invaders.

Er, no! It was the North wot invaded and over-ran the South - and very nearly pulled it off.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Hard to see this War ending unless Putin goes or is removed unfortunately. It is now heading for WW1 style stalemate

In that case, you can export your expertise on turnip nutrition.

FrankBooth

HYUFD said:

Hard to see this War ending unless Putin goes or is removed unfortunately. It is now heading for WW1 style stalemate

The slowness of weapons deliveries to Ukraine has not helped but there is a very real possibility of a major offensive in the south. We will have to wait and see. The other positive is US artillery, hopefully now longer range, which Russia has not really had an answer to thus far.

Peter_the_Punter

Never mind Ukraine. NZ win the toss...and bowl!

FF43

I think Ukraine can impose a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia will ultimately not be willing to pay. But I fear for the state Ukraine will be in before Russia realises that.

LostPassword

Most conflicts end with a negotiated settlement

Countries turn to war as a method of foreign policy because they believe that they can achieve more through the use of force than through diplomatic negotiations. So negotiations will only happen once both sides give up on making greater gains on the battlefield than at the negotiating table.

Given the continuing gap between Russian negotiating demands and their battlefield performance, it is going to take a while before that point is reached. Some lessons take a lot of bitter experience to learn.

Nigelb

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

And Korea was North Koreans fighting for their country against foreign invaders.

Er, no! It was the North wot invaded and over-ran the South - and very nearly pulled it off.

Actually the invasion was preceded by a widespread insurgency campaign in the south - a large part of it indigenous. The main campaign was Soviet/Chinese backed, of course, but it was at root a civil war.

It really doesn’t stand all that much direct comparison with the invasion of Ukraine. Except that without US help (and had they not had a major port on the southern tip of the country), South Korea would have been defeated much more quickly than Ukraine.

And also, of course, in Korea the US and its allies did the bulk of the early fighting, with the ROK forces only becoming a significant element later on.
Ukraine, in contrast, are doing their own fighting.

LostPassword

FF43 said:

I think Ukraine can impose a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia will ultimately not be willing to pay. But I fear for the state Ukraine will be in before Russia realises that.

Two of the three major Russian retreats in this war have been caused by Ukrainian success in damaging Russian logistics supply - around Kyiv in the north and Kherson in the south.

If Ukraine is given longer-range weapons to hit the Russian logistics that supply Crimea and the Donbas, then I think that is the surest route to forcing future Russian withdrawals earlier rather than later.

Nigelb

LostPassword said:

Most conflicts end with a negotiated settlement

How do most invasions end ?

Nigelb

Government getting something right ?
https://twitter.com/FLF_Nick/status/1628872763258675203

Peter_the_Punter

Nigelb said:

Government getting something right ?
https://twitter.com/FLF_Nick/status/1628872763258675203

Went with a bang, did it?

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

Hard to see this War ending unless Putin goes or is removed unfortunately. It is now heading for WW1 style stalemate

If Navalny were still in Berlin, they could stick him on a train.

Nigelb

Interesting thread.
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

How do most invasions end ?

In embarrassment for the over-confident people who advocated them. They're almost always more difficult than expected.

Nigelb

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:

Government getting something right ?
https://twitter.com/FLF_Nick/status/1628872763258675203

Went with a bang, did it?

The eventual aim is around ten per second.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

And Korea was North Koreans fighting for their country against foreign invaders.

Er, no! It was the North wot invaded and over-ran the South - and very nearly pulled it off.

Actually the invasion was preceded by a widespread insurgency campaign in the south - a large part of it indigenous. The main campaign was Soviet/Chinese backed, of course, but it was at root a civil war.

It really doesn’t stand all that much direct comparison with the invasion of Ukraine. Except that without US help (and had they not had a major port on the southern tip of the country), South Korea would have been defeated much more quickly than Ukraine.

And also, of course, in Korea the US and its allies did the bulk of the early fighting, with the ROK forces only becoming a significant element later on.
Ukraine, in contrast, are doing their own fighting.

Similarly, the North would have been destroyed but for the Chinese intervention.

I wonder if Mao's successors have ever regretted his decision?

Nigelb

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

How do most invasions end ?

In embarrassment for the over-confident people who advocated them. They're almost always more difficult than expected.

Genuine question.
‘Invasions’ are only a subset of ‘conflicts’, so I don’t think you can treat the two as indistinguishable.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

Interesting thread.
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.

I have a baseless suspicion that a great deal of British money has been used to buy ammunition for Ukraine from all manner of strange places and discreet third parties.

Wouldn't surprise me if some of that money was finding its way to Iran.

Whether any friends of ministers have been involved in this process, and taken their cut, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

How do most invasions end ?

In embarrassment for the over-confident people who advocated them. They're almost always more difficult than expected.

Genuine question.
‘Invasions’ are only a subset of ‘conflicts’, so I don’t think you can treat the two as indistinguishable.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. My guess is that the stakes are generally higher following an invasion, and so the potential for negotiations is lower, and there's a greater chance of one side or the other achieving a more complete victory, and the ability to dictate terms.

YBarddCwsc

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

mwadams

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting thread.
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.

I have a baseless suspicion that a great deal of British money has been used to buy ammunition for Ukraine from all manner of strange places and discreet third parties.

Wouldn't surprise me if some of that money was finding its way to Iran.

Whether any friends of ministers have been involved in this process, and taken their cut, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

It's it not just as likely to have been captured from the Russians?

LostPassword

mwadams said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting thread.
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.

I have a baseless suspicion that a great deal of British money has been used to buy ammunition for Ukraine from all manner of strange places and discreet third parties.

Wouldn't surprise me if some of that money was finding its way to Iran.

Whether any friends of ministers have been involved in this process, and taken their cut, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

It's it not just as likely to have been captured from the Russians?

Not recently. I would have thought that anything captured in the Ukrainian advances last autumn would have been long since used, and seen much earlier.

LostPassword

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

YBarddCwsc

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nigelb

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

Why does 1 necessarily imply Putin being ousted ?
And I’d disagree about its position on the list.
And of course all of us tend to conflate probabilities with our opinions.

But I’d agree entirely with you that wars are inherently unpredictable.

LostPassword

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

rcs1000

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

Indeed: and Russia has a fearsome internal security apparatus, and there is no figure for the opposition to rally around. (Except Navalny, and he's in prison. Or Nadia from Pussy Riot. And she's here in LA.)

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

The world is a fundamentally more dangerous place if bullies are seen to get what they want. Especially if they wave their nuclear willies around.

Nigelb

mwadams said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting thread.
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.

I have a baseless suspicion that a great deal of British money has been used to buy ammunition for Ukraine from all manner of strange places and discreet third parties.

Wouldn't surprise me if some of that money was finding its way to Iran.

Whether any friends of ministers have been involved in this process, and taken their cut, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

It's it not just as likely to have been captured from the Russians?

Possible, but not as likely.

Although the transfer of Iranian artillery ammunition to Russia was recently reported- so far we haven't seen any Iranian materiel used by Russian forces- but rest assured if we do, we will report on it.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628863016694325249

Also:
This is the fourth type of ammunition of Iranian origin to be documented in use with the Ukrainian military: prior to this, we have noted Ukrainian troops using 122mm/152mm artillery projectiles and 122mm Grad rockets- all made in Iran in 2022.

YBarddCwsc

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

I am not sure I agree with that either. Wars are unpredictable. The losing side often faces internal turmoil.

Anyhow, I hope this war will end with 4. And as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

FrankBooth

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think a Russian defeat is far more likely than nuclear escalation. As for the other outcomes I don't know. Let's say you get to a military stalemate, the Russian economy will still remain crippled through sanctions. They don't seem to be making a profit on their oil sales at the moment, they can't sell their gas, there has been a massive walkout of western corporations, the war itself is very costly and probably 1-2% of their workforce has left the country. The reports by international bodies like the IMF might not seem that bad but their figures are based on statistics faxed through from Rosneft. Forgive me for not taking those numbers at face value.

Nigelb

This guy really isn’t any better than Trump.
First education, now journalism is the target.

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling
Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/23/florida-gop-desantis-proposal-sue-media-00084023
… “I have never seen anything remotely like this legislation,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “I can’t say I have seen every bill ever introduced, but I’d be quite surprised if any state Legislature had seriously considered such a brazen and blatantly unconstitutional attack on speech and press freedoms.”

He added: “This bill is particularly remarkable since its provisions have the vocal support of a governor and likely presidential candidate.”..

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

I am not sure I agree with that either. Wars are unpredictable. The losing side often faces internal turmoil.

Anyhow, I hope this war will end with 4. And as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

Sorry, you want a country that was invaded to offer concessions to the invader because... because...

You've lost me here.

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

The world is a fundamentally more dangerous place if bullies are seen to get what they want. Especially if they wave their nuclear willies around.

Thank you, Boris, for that cogent analysis.

It has all the depth and glitter of Lulu Lytle's gold wallpaper.

Anabobazina

we are three down in the cricket

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

The world is a fundamentally more dangerous place if bullies are seen to get what they want. Especially if they wave their nuclear willies around.

Thank you, Boris, for that cogent analysis.

It has all the depth and glitter of Lulu Lytle's gold wallpaper.

It doesn't make it any less true.

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

rcs1000

NZ on top right now.

Ouch.

ydoethur

Anabobazina said:

we are three down in the cricket

Harry Brook's due a failure, too.

FrankBooth

rcs - are we safe for next winter with regards to gas now? Has Russia conclusively lost the energy war?

Northern_Al

ydoethur said:

Anabobazina said:

we are three down in the cricket

Harry Brook's due a failure, too.

Phew - that's a century nailed on.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

It’s not.
But if you accept as axiomatic that Putin will fall and the Russian empire break up if they are defeated in Ukraine, then the resulting chaos might look dangerous.

Though if course it’s not axiomatic, and those things could also happen without a war in Ukraine.

Nigelb

Northern_Al said:

ydoethur said:

Anabobazina said:

we are three down in the cricket

Harry Brook's due a failure, too.

Phew - that's a century nailed on.

Oi. Take back that nonsense.

YBarddCwsc

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

Sunil_Prasannan

I feel I must apologise for my nation-of-birth's conduct during ze Ukraine War!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64748349

ping

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

Terrifyingly, 1 and 5 are correlated, imo.

Whatever/whoever comes after Putin is, I’m sure, being actively gamed in intel/military circles. It’s going to be a moment/period of serious nuclear risk.

MoonRabbit

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

The UN vote is always a good indication of geopolitics.

*Axis of Moonbat*
Russia
Belarus
North Korea
Syria
Eritrea
Mali

*Fence-sitting appeasers*
China
Iran
India
South Africa
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Congo
Cuba
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Gabon
Guinea
Kazakhstan
Kyrgistan
Laos
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Tajikistan
Togo
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Zimbabwe

Venezuela was a no-show.

The first list is Russian and her satellites and close allies. The second is essentially China, Chinese satellites (Laos, Sri Lanka, much of Africa) and the self-consciously non-aligned (India etc).

China has carved Africa up like a roast.

A lot of Latin America countries have older Russian military equipment like Ukraines, so would have been a quick win taking the US offer to give it to Ukraine for up to date US stuff free of charge. And not a single Latin American country would do it. 😠

MoonRabbit

ydoethur said:

Anabobazina said:

we are three down in the cricket

Harry Brook's due a failure, too.

If Yorkshire got nowt, Englands got nowt 😇

londonpubman

In the old days - 2022 - we would have been bowled out for 70. Now we play positive, get 170 off 35 overs. Then get them out for 250. Then hit 380 off 65 to set them a target of 280 and win on day 3 👍

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

Nigelb

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

As does 1 without 5. Call it 6.

As does Ukraine pushing back to either the 2014 or 2021 boundaries, or somewhere in between, this year, and the front stabilising there. And an armistice agreed. 7 or 8.

Point is there are a number of possible outcomes which you don’t think are possible, along with the ones which you think are.

londonpubman

londonpubman said:

In the old days - 2022 - we would have been bowled out for 70. Now we play positive, get 170 off 35 overs. Then get them out for 250. Then hit 380 off 65 to set them a target of 280 and win on day 3 👍

Especially when the target is 300 👍👍

dixiedean

Blooming heck. Alanbrooke has been busy
Good header.

rcs1000

FrankBooth said:

rcs - are we safe for next winter with regards to gas now? Has Russia conclusively lost the energy war?

Well, nothing is certain, but it looks pretty encouraging. We're going to go into next winter with 20-30% more gas in storage than this year, with greater non-Russian supplies secured, and more wind and solar.

A *really* cold winter, where the wind didn't blow would likely still cause problems, but the safety margin is increasing all the time.

MoonRabbit

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

Hard to see this War ending unless Putin goes or is removed unfortunately. It is now heading for WW1 style stalemate

The slowness of weapons deliveries to Ukraine has not helped but there is a very real possibility of a major offensive in the south. We will have to wait and see. The other positive is US artillery, hopefully now longer range, which Russia has not really had an answer to thus far.

Not just longer range, but accurate with it. So accurate it can pinpoint the Gadfly they are reading whilst sat in their trench miles from the front. I think it was Yokes who posted it means the months hard work Russia done digging in and setting up supply lines is now rubbish if accurate long range artillery can take them out at will from miles away.

rcs1000

@YBarddCwsc

Just as a matter of interest, would it have been better in the Second World War if we'd offered the Nazis a nice face saving way out? Or maybe conspired to keep them in place, just to make sure that we didn't get someone worse in power?

Nigelb

Interesting article on the pre-war Zelenskyy.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/23/volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-leadership-comedy-00083489

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

ohnotnow

FPT (soz)

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Sean_F said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.

imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.

Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.

Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.

Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.

Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.

Ghislaine Maxwell fits that statement, yet the government has made no move to strip her of her British citizenship.
She has French and USA citizenship to fall back on.

They don't really need to though as she is going to be in a us prison for a long long time so its not needed....begum on the other hand would be proseletying down finsbury park mosque by now if we hadn't

The locals are (rightly) prosecuting her for her crimes, so I don't think that's true.

As far as last I heard they havent prosecuted her in syria yet and she is still in a camp. Good let them prosecute her

The U.K. has asked them not to. They are quite attuned to media, and know that sentencing a
U.K. connected person would ignite a firestorm.

Where?

If she were found guilty in a local court, most people would be satisfied.

A Muslim being sentenced in a Yazidi court?

All the human rights lawyers in the U.K. would explode like Lemmings in the old computer game….

I used to love all those lemmings exploding, you have just given me an even better image to imagine

I knew one of the developers who worked on the SNES (SEGA?) port of Lemmings and he was constantly worried about running out of RAM on the console due to each 'dig' being a different 'sprite' as far as the console was concerned,

#100%trufax

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

@YBarddCwsc

Just as a matter of interest, would it have been better in the Second World War if we'd offered the Nazis a nice face saving way out? Or maybe conspired to keep them in place, just to make sure that we didn't get someone worse in power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Malmesbury

In the last thread, foreign aid got mentioned.

U.K. 0.5% of GDP - after the cut
New Zealand 0.30% of GDP

On Ukraine - that’s why, to stop the war, we should offer Putin a territorial concession. A big old chunk of Wales. Who could object to that?

ohnotnow

From FPT again (soz - bad timing)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Turnips are absolutely minging.

There's only ever been one good turnip in the history of humanity.

The turnip shaped like a thingy.

You wicked boy!

I have a puritanical aunt who actually called me a wicked boy in Urdu.

She also slapped me across the face.

My lifestyle choice did not go down well.

Is your aunt single? Asking for a friend...

Foxy

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

He might have an accident while looking out the window too. It seems to happen a lot there.

I think that it will grind on as a stalemate.

One thing UKR and NATO need to plan for is the return of Trump and the switching off of American aid. It could be just two years away.

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

Foxy

dixiedean said:

Blooming heck. Alanbrooke has been busy
Good header.

Yes, though I think the figures on deaths in the first paragraph are too high. Even the Ukranians are only claiming 125 000 or so dead Russians.

FrankBooth

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

I don't think it has been actually bar the odd rumour.

And he's going to lose power at some point anyway, war or no war. What happens to Russia then, who knows?

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

carnforth

Headline inflation falling, but core inflation stubbornly refuses to:

https://archive.ph/G4kuE

NickPalmer

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

I am not sure I agree with that either. Wars are unpredictable. The losing side often faces internal turmoil.

Anyhow, I hope this war will end with 4. And as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

Yes, that's my view. Putin is a classic imperialist and the war is indefensible, but he's probably rational in his own terms and IMO unlikely to start a nuclear war. His replacement - somehat like Zhirinovsky - might not be, which is why the potential of 1 can lead to 5.

Andy_JS

I don't think either side is going to win this war. It's going to end in a stalemate of some sort.

Yokes

What I think many people fail to appreciate is how much sections of the Russian security and military appartus were not keen, including some of Putins closest advisors, ranking members of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and some of the most senior military people now prosecuting the war.

At the time, just in the run up to the conflict I posted that Putin had left himself no off ramps and so it was. The key support came from the FSB and Putins own paramilitary creation the National Guard. The latter in particular put in notable manpower in the earliest days of the conflict. That was an indication of perhaps the state of the Russian forces overall. The National Guard is not a heavy military force, something that soon got found out.

On an unrelated note I am sad to say that my prediction that some of those who were likely involved in the planning & shooting of a police officer in Omagh yesterday were home based around 25-30miles away from the town. Two of those arrested today are indeed from 30 miles away. Its a small place and people know who the players are.

FrankBooth

Yokes said:

What I think many people fail to appreciate is how much sections of the Russian security and military appartus were not keen, including some of Putins closest advisors, ranking members of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and some of the most senior military people now prosecuting the war.

At the time, just in the run up to the conflict I posted that Putin had left himself no off ramps and so it was. The key support came from the FSB and Putins own paramilitary creation the National Guard. The latter in particular put in notable manpower in the earliest days of the conflict. That was an indication of perhaps the state of the Russian forces overall. The National Guard is not a heavy military force, something that soon got found out.

On an unrelated note I am sad to say that my prediction that some of those who were likely involved in the planning & shooting of a police officer in Omagh yesterday were home based around 25-30miles away from the town. Two of those arrested today are indeed from 30 miles away. Its a small place and people know who the players are.

This is the mystery. I don't really get how the Russian system operates but if the senior people weren't that keen it's a surprise Putin's position is so stable. Or at least seems to be.

On the arrests, are you suggesting the individuals were from the south?

Nigelb

.Not to worry @Leon , but a fatal human case of H5N1 in Cambodia,

“The same media organization—in Khmer—said the girl had 12 contacts and that 4 of them had flulike symptoms. Agence France-Presse said officials are waiting on tests collected from dead birds found near the girl's village.”
https://twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/1628888680424173576

williamglenn

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

It might be helpful for you to write down a similar list of granular options to break down the different ways in which 5 could play out. What precisely do you envisage and what would the consequences be for Russia and the rest of the world?

kle4

Good, punchy header.

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Blooming heck. Alanbrooke has been busy
Good header.

Yes, though I think the figures on deaths in the first paragraph are too high. Even the Ukranians are only claiming 125 000 or so dead Russians.

I think it is now over 140,000.

That doesn't include Russia's domestic defenestrations.

Theuniondivvie

Nigelb said:

.Not to worry @Leon , but a fatal human case of H5N1 in Cambodia,

“The same media organization—in Khmer—said the girl had 12 contacts and that 4 of them had flulike symptoms. Agence France-Presse said officials are waiting on tests collected from dead birds found near the girl's village.”
https://twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/1628888680424173576

I hope the Last of Us isn’t Leon battling through hell and high water to protect some wee lassie who holds the saving of humanity within her.
For the wee lassie’s sake apart from anything else.

kle4

Andy_JS said:

I don't think either side is going to win this war. It's going to end in a stalemate of some sort.

Sure, but stalemates can come in many forms. A return to the pre 2022 situation but Ukraine unable to retake Donbas or Crimea would be a stalemate. Russia able to hold onto its land corridor but lose a bit more of the currently occupied area and no more would be a stalemate.

MarqueeMark

A year on, the letter "Z" is going to need a shitload of PR spend to be rehabilitated....

kle4

NickPalmer said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Gross miscalculations happen routinely in wars. That is why they are fundamentally unpredictable and dangerous.

Nevertheless, the only threat to the stability of the Putin regime is internal. It does not face an external threat to its survival. That makes its collapse inherently much less likely. No-one is marching on Moscow to aim for regime change.

I am not sure I agree with that either. Wars are unpredictable. The losing side often faces internal turmoil.

Anyhow, I hope this war will end with 4. And as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

Yes, that's my view. Putin is a classic imperialist

How can that be? I'm sure the unimpeachable source that is twitter bios will reveal many an 'anti-imperalist' fully on board with him.

YBarddCwsc

williamglenn said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

It might be helpful for you to write down a similar list of granular options to break down the different ways in which 5 could play out. What precisely do you envisage and what would the consequences be for Russia and the rest of the world?

That will keep me busy As regards 5, what probability do you judge acceptable?

My own view is that the probability is around 5 per cent. It is not the most likely outcome. But, it is way more likely than I judge acceptable. I also think if Boris become Secretary General of NATO, the probability is higher.

Let's say

P(1) ≈ 5 %

P(2) ≈ 10 %

P(3) ≈ 40 %

P(4) ≈ 30 %

P(5) ≈ 5%

P(something else) ≈ 10 %

Now of course, you may disagree with my probabilities which are just guesses. But, I think it is a useful exercise to think of outcomes and how likely they really are.

I think the PB preferred outcome -- Ukraine recovering all its territory including Crimea, a victorious Ukraine stopping promptly at the border and a losing Russia not suffering major & very dangerous internal convulsions -- is incredibly unlikely, say ≈ < 5 %

Gardenwalker

I think @YBarddCwsc is wrong in his conclusions, but war certainly has unpredictable consequences.

If it is true that China has decided to supply Russia with drones then we can expect the escalation of “deglobalisation” and even sanctions.

This would not be a positive move for the global economy.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

A year on, the letter "Z" is going to need a shitload of PR spend to be rehabilitated....

Organise a boycott I say.

(I actually cannot remember if Organize is the British or American spelling).

Jim_Miller

I have two copies of the Penguin Atlas of Recent History, by Colin McEvedy.

Why two?

Because in the 1982 version, McEvedy said: "What had been greeted as peace quickly changed into an era of 'Cold War'. And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf has remained unbridged: There has been detente, but no rapprochement.

Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)

That flat statement made me wonder whether, in the 2002 edition (which has "New" added to the title), McEvedy admitted he had been wrong.

He didn't.

(Full disclosure: By 1982, as incurable optimist, I believed that the Soviet regime would collapse of its own internal contradictions, but I did not expect it to happen nearly as soon as it did.

I think Putin's kleptocratic oligarchy will also collapse, but have no idea when that will happen.)

Yokes

FrankBooth said:

Yokes said:

What I think many people fail to appreciate is how much sections of the Russian security and military appartus were not keen, including some of Putins closest advisors, ranking members of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and some of the most senior military people now prosecuting the war.

At the time, just in the run up to the conflict I posted that Putin had left himself no off ramps and so it was. The key support came from the FSB and Putins own paramilitary creation the National Guard. The latter in particular put in notable manpower in the earliest days of the conflict. That was an indication of perhaps the state of the Russian forces overall. The National Guard is not a heavy military force, something that soon got found out.

On an unrelated note I am sad to say that my prediction that some of those who were likely involved in the planning & shooting of a police officer in Omagh yesterday were home based around 25-30miles away from the town. Two of those arrested today are indeed from 30 miles away. Its a small place and people know who the players are.

This is the mystery. I don't really get how the Russian system operates but if the senior people weren't that keen it's a surprise Putin's position is so stable. Or at least seems to be.

On the arrests, are you suggesting the individuals were from the south?

No, East Tyrone. Its a hub spot for some of the most capable and experienced operators.

kle4

YBarddCwsc said:

I think the PB preferred outcome -- Ukraine recovering all its territory including Crimea, a victorious Ukraine stopping promptly at the border and a losing Russia not suffering major & very dangerous internal convulsions -- is incredibly unlikely, say ≈ < 5 %

I think that is a pretty reasonable, as far as any of us online people can judge, estimate of the chances. That's sad, and pushes for any settled peace should never be done in a ridiculous or casual way (in the give peace a chance, man, mould), but I don't think many people would be super surprised if Crimea was never recovered.

Andy_JS

Jim_Miller said:

I have two copies of the Penguin Atlas of Recent History, by Colin McEvedy.

Why two?

Because in the 1982 version, McEvedy said: "What had been greeted as peace quickly changed into an era of 'Cold War'. And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf has remained unbridged: There has been detente, but no rapprochement.

Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)

That flat statement made me wonder whether, in the 2002 edition (which has "New" added to the title), McEvedy admitted he had been wrong.

He didn't.

(Full disclosure: By 1982, as incurable optimist, I believed that the Soviet regime would collapse of its own internal contradictions, but I did not expect it to happen nearly as soon as it did.

I think Putin's kleptocratic oligarchy will also collapse, but have no idea when that will happen.)

I can remember how surprised everyone was when communism collapsed in 1989 and 1991 even though I was only about 10 / 12 years old at the time.

kle4

Malmesbury said:

In the last thread, foreign aid got mentioned.

U.K. 0.5% of GDP - after the cut
New Zealand 0.30% of GDP

On Ukraine - that’s why, to stop the war, we should offer Putin a territorial concession. A big old chunk of Wales. Who could object to that?

Steady on. What do we have NI for if not that exact scenario?

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.

If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.

That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.

In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.

If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.

You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.

edmundintokyo

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

I think that Russia can lose the war without that necessarily leading to the end of Putin's dictatorship, or the collapse of the Russian state, because the war is being almost exclusively fought outside the borders of Russia - and that's the fundamental lack of symmetry in the war.

As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

Yup - I mean, Saddam Hussein was comprehensively defeated after invading Kuwait and he stayed in office, and his state didn't really collapse even with years of sanctions. After Russia formally annexed Kherson a lot of people seemed to think Russia would have to react with nuclear weapons or something if they lost it, but no, they just lost it, moved their armies backwards and carried on.

Russia has money coming in from fossil fuels and can't be economically isolated unless they really piss off China. So if they run out of ammunition or something, Ukraine pushes them back to its borders and they give up, that's in no way the end of the Russian state, and not necessarily the end of Putin.

williamglenn

YBarddCwsc said:

williamglenn said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

It might be helpful for you to write down a similar list of granular options to break down the different ways in which 5 could play out. What precisely do you envisage and what would the consequences be for Russia and the rest of the world?

That will keep me busy As regards 5, what probability do you judge acceptable?

My own view is that the probability is around 5 per cent. It is not the most likely outcome. But, it is way more likely than I judge acceptable. I also think if Boris become Secretary General of NATO, the probability is higher.

Let's say

P(1) ≈ 5 %

P(2) ≈ 10 %

P(3) ≈ 40 %

P(4) ≈ 30 %

P(5) ≈ 5%

P(something else) ≈ 10 %

Now of course, you may disagree with my probabilities which are just guesses. But, I think it is a useful exercise to think of outcomes and how likely they really are.

I think the PB preferred outcome -- Ukraine recovering all its territory including Crimea, a victorious Ukraine stopping promptly at the border and a losing Russia not suffering major & very dangerous internal convulsions -- is incredibly unlikely, say ≈ < 5 %

What I meant was that "escalation to nuclear" can mean many things and lumping them all together just serves to amplify the fear factor. For example it could be:

1. Putin tests a nuclear weapon in the vicinity as a show of force

2. Putin uses a battlefield nuke against Ukrainian troops

3. Putin tries to nuke a major Ukrainian city

In all cases, how would this help Russia achieve a strategic victory? Do you think of a nuclear escalation as just meaning that Russia launches a first strike on NATO with everything they've got?

kle4

Northern_Al said:

ydoethur said:

Anabobazina said:

we are three down in the cricket

Harry Brook's due a failure, too.

Phew - that's a century nailed on.

Dude certainly has had a lively start to his career. But until the Jessop century is eclipsed it's for naught.

rcs1000

As an aside, collapse is very rarely a slow and gradual process. It tends to be very sudden, and happen in days or weeks.

Andy_JS

O/T

It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.

Dura_Ace

LostPassword said:

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.

edmundintokyo

FrankBooth said:

Yokes said:

What I think many people fail to appreciate is how much sections of the Russian security and military appartus were not keen, including some of Putins closest advisors, ranking members of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and some of the most senior military people now prosecuting the war.

At the time, just in the run up to the conflict I posted that Putin had left himself no off ramps and so it was. The key support came from the FSB and Putins own paramilitary creation the National Guard. The latter in particular put in notable manpower in the earliest days of the conflict. That was an indication of perhaps the state of the Russian forces overall. The National Guard is not a heavy military force, something that soon got found out.

On an unrelated note I am sad to say that my prediction that some of those who were likely involved in the planning & shooting of a police officer in Omagh yesterday were home based around 25-30miles away from the town. Two of those arrested today are indeed from 30 miles away. Its a small place and people know who the players are.

This is the mystery. I don't really get how the Russian system operates but if the senior people weren't that keen it's a surprise Putin's position is so stable. Or at least seems to be.

It's easy to forget just how deranged people get when their country goes to war.

If this seems alien to you, remember this graphic from The Times in 2001:
https://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.

It seems there are the following outcomes

1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.

2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.

3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.

4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.

5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...

I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.

I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.

How is 1 more dangerous than 5?

I think we don't get to 1 without 5.

So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.

But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.

All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.

There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.

The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.

And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.

Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.

You know that he will - at some point - die, right?

That's true of all of us.

He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.

But ultimately, your argument is specious:

"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"

My argument is a very simple one.

We have a very unpredictable war.

You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.

And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.

You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.

First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).

Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.

And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.

If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.

That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.

In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.

If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.

You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.

All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.

That is because -- you may have noticed -- whenever there is a border, there are some minorities on the other side of it. It is in fact a pretty fucking ubiquitous phenomenon.

Other than that, your post is Boris bluster.

You know nothing about my views. As evidence, only the other day, you were gaily posting slanderous stuff about me being anti-vax and pro-invermectin.

kle4

Dura_Ace said:

LostPassword said:

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.

Ok, but national perspectives are not immune from changing, it isn't inevitable a current perspective is maintained. As someone who knows the country do you have any idea of what might conceivably change that perspective, and is that something simply not a practical possibility?

Sunil_Prasannan

Dura_Ace said:

LostPassword said:

As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.

This is a hyper Western perspective. The prevalent view in Russia, whether onboard with Putin's nationalist autocracy or not, is that the SMO is Russia fighting for its survival. You might think they are all wrong and you might be right but it doesn't change the characterisation and perspective of the SMO inside Russia. This isn't their Suez where they can just pack it in when it gets hard and retreat to a humbled, diminished yet intact status.

Didn't have you down as a right-wing Russian nationalist!