This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
Getting rich and getting democratic are two different things. Enriching autocracies is a bad idea.
Staying rich is massively more difficult as a despotism. Argentina was very wealthy in 1946. Not so much after 9 years of Peronism, then repeated military coups and instability to our own day.
Though gdp per capita in Argentina still fractionally above the global average
For my money, while the overall consensus continues to be for a long-running grind, there are enough straws in the wind to entertain the prospect of a possible “early” (ie 2023) Russian collapse.
I do find the Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument compelling. No-one wins long term by humiliating Russia. Defeat is humiliation enough.
I do favour a return to 1991 borders, but I can see a decent case for the resumption of the Kharkiv Pact allowing for Russian naval in Sebastopol, a commitment by Ukraine not to join NATO, and perhaps even some special status for Crimea and the Donbas, along the lines of Northern Ireland for example.
Long-term, our policy should aim to bring Russia into Western economic, political, and defence structures.
a russian collapse cant happen if ukraine is running out of artillery shells though...i think you are indulging in wishful thinking
Why not?
how does Ukraine advance without sufficient artillery
Russia’s governance model for centuries has been “strong men surrounding an autocrat” with a strong dose of Orthodox Christianity exceptionalism thrown in. The labels may have changed from aristocrat to oligarch and tsar to president, but the model is essentially the same.
It is the legacy of the Russian lands being united by Muscovy, and not Kiev or Novgorod. Russian culture is a criminal Muscovite one, built out of autocratic, Mongol-style rule. Russia can only be brought in from the cold if it abandons its current mentality and creates a new one in rejection of it, as Germany did after 1945.
More likely is that the Russian Empire breaks up, as Ukraine succeeds a la Poland or Czechia, and some regions want to recreate the success free of Moscow's dominance.
So is Russia right to see this as a battle for its own survival then? Putin is always described as a paranoid nutjob, but yet the long term plan for Russia from most US commentators, foreign policy wonks, and politicians (clearly the ones influencing your posts at any rate) always lead to the break up of Russia. And this is all well before the current conflict.
No, the battle for Russia's survival depends on whether it chooses to embrace a future as a democratic, decent nation or not. This war is inevitably lost because you can't endlessly occupy a country of 40 million people that hate you.
Also, your obsession with the US bogeyman behind everything is hilarious. My comments are my own judgments based on my knoweldge of Russian and Ukrainian history. The idea that some American congressman behind them is even more fanciful than Britain solving its vegetable shortage with fracking.
I’ve discovered another one of those fundamental divides in opinion since the Ukraine war started. We already had economic left vs right, and from 2016 onwards we became aware of social authoritarian vs liberal.
But there is another clear distinction that cuts across left and right, leave and remain. People who, deep down, believe in the Pax Americana and those who don’t.
A few years ago I’d have said I was in the latter camp. I hated the Iraq war, I looked in despair at first the neocons with their adventurism and then the tea party, Obamaites and MAGAs with their insularity. But from the Scripal poisonings onwards I realised I still believed that US hegemony is better than almost any other scenario. On that I have an odd collection of bedfellows from Boris Johnson to Paul Mason.
Pax Americana is the best stopgap until Australia is ready to step up to global leadership.
The worrying thing is that could happen in the event of a thermonuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. It would be Australia vs China for Hegemon.
Australia is already effectively part of NATO via AUKUS.
New Zealand is more neutral, Australia isn't
Nonsense. It isn't committed to defending Norway, is it?
Australia's main role is defending South Korea and Japan and with the US deterring China from threatening Taiwan.
However if Russia invaded Norway Australia would also almost certainly be involved in supporting NATO there too
That's sure one interpretation of military reality. How are they going to get there, from the Persian Gulf direct?
Russia’s governance model for centuries has been “strong men surrounding an autocrat” with a strong dose of Orthodox Christianity exceptionalism thrown in. The labels may have changed from aristocrat to oligarch and tsar to president, but the model is essentially the same.
It is the legacy of the Russian lands being united by Muscovy, and not Kiev or Novgorod. Russian culture is a criminal Muscovite one, built out of autocratic, Mongol-style rule. Russia can only be brought in from the cold if it abandons its current mentality and creates a new one in rejection of it, as Germany did after 1945.
More likely is that the Russian Empire breaks up, as Ukraine succeeds a la Poland or Czechia, and some regions want to recreate the success free of Moscow's dominance.
So is Russia right to see this as a battle for its own survival then? Putin is always described as a paranoid nutjob, but yet the long term plan for Russia from most US commentators, foreign policy wonks, and politicians (clearly the ones influencing your posts at any rate) always lead to the break up of Russia. And this is all well before the current conflict.
No, the battle for Russia's survival depends on whether it chooses to embrace a future as a democratic, decent nation or not. This war is inevitably lost because you can't endlessly occupy a country of 40 million people that hate you.
Also, your obsession with the US bogeyman behind everything is hilarious. My comments are my own judgments based on my knoweldge of Russian and Ukrainian history. The idea that some American congressman behind them is even more fanciful than Britain solving its vegetable shortage with fracking.
I’ve discovered another one of those fundamental divides in opinion since the Ukraine war started. We already had economic left vs right, and from 2016 onwards we became aware of social authoritarian vs liberal.
But there is another clear distinction that cuts across left and right, leave and remain. People who, deep down, believe in the Pax Americana and those who don’t.
A few years ago I’d have said I was in the latter camp. I hated the Iraq war, I looked in despair at first the neocons with their adventurism and then the tea party, Obamaites and MAGAs with their insularity. But from the Scripal poisonings onwards I realised I still believed that US hegemony is better than almost any other scenario. On that I have an odd collection of bedfellows from Boris Johnson to Paul Mason.
The Trotskyists who avoided sliding into making apologias for the Soviet Union used to have a slogan during the Cold War of, "Neither Washington, or Moscow, but International Socialism!" Which is to say that they maintained you could oppose both the Stalinist imperialism of the USSR and the Capitalist imperialism of the USA.
Now I'm still down with the idea of International Socialism, and I think there's a lot to oppose in the international conduct of western countries, but, when push comes to shove I would choose the capitalist imperialism of the USA, over the authoritarian imperialism of Russia, China, or whoever else, if International Socialism isn't available. So, yes, sign me up for the Pax Americana, as a last resort, too.
This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
I disagree. People are attracted by the money in the west but many despise the social policies in the west....from gay marriage and trans rights to extreme feminism....Putin alluded to this in his speech
When are you getting to the BA pilots? I love that bit.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
If it's members of the public turning up on your doorstep, then they're recieving different information. If your media (or Internet sources...) follow the Russian narrative of Ukrainians being Nazis and the west having started this war (and heck, we see those sorts of views, if codified, by some wise posters on here). This is particularly true for countries whose media is less 'free' than ours.
If it's members of the regime or government, then their government has decided it's better to be closer to Russia than the west, for whatever reasons.
Most but now you are starting to find some Trump and Farage and Le Pen supporters who would probably rather live in Russia under Putin now and his nationalist social conservativism than the liberal Western nations they do live in.
Corbyinites would probably rather live in Cuba than the UK too
We'd be better off if those idiots pissed off to those countries.
... The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
I disagree. People are attracted by the money in the west but many despise the social policies in the west....from gay marriage and trans rights to extreme feminism....Putin alluded to this in his speech
Can you give us an example of extreme feminism? Is it along the lines of giving the gentle flowers the vote?
well constant banging on about a non existent pay gap is what many would count as extreme feminism...pure divisive rhetoric
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
There’s a surplus r and missing t in your handle.
The absence of capitals and punctuation is a feature we have seen before.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Peace talks can start when every Russian soldier leaves Ukraine, and can start with how much reparation Russia is going to pay, when it will return any civilians it’s abducted and how it will guarantee not invading again…
Russia’s governance model for centuries has been “strong men surrounding an autocrat” with a strong dose of Orthodox Christianity exceptionalism thrown in. The labels may have changed from aristocrat to oligarch and tsar to president, but the model is essentially the same.
It is the legacy of the Russian lands being united by Muscovy, and not Kiev or Novgorod. Russian culture is a criminal Muscovite one, built out of autocratic, Mongol-style rule. Russia can only be brought in from the cold if it abandons its current mentality and creates a new one in rejection of it, as Germany did after 1945.
More likely is that the Russian Empire breaks up, as Ukraine succeeds a la Poland or Czechia, and some regions want to recreate the success free of Moscow's dominance.
So is Russia right to see this as a battle for its own survival then? Putin is always described as a paranoid nutjob, but yet the long term plan for Russia from most US commentators, foreign policy wonks, and politicians (clearly the ones influencing your posts at any rate) always lead to the break up of Russia. And this is all well before the current conflict.
No, the battle for Russia's survival depends on whether it chooses to embrace a future as a democratic, decent nation or not. This war is inevitably lost because you can't endlessly occupy a country of 40 million people that hate you.
Also, your obsession with the US bogeyman behind everything is hilarious. My comments are my own judgments based on my knoweldge of Russian and Ukrainian history. The idea that some American congressman behind them is even more fanciful than Britain solving its vegetable shortage with fracking.
I’ve discovered another one of those fundamental divides in opinion since the Ukraine war started. We already had economic left vs right, and from 2016 onwards we became aware of social authoritarian vs liberal.
But there is another clear distinction that cuts across left and right, leave and remain. People who, deep down, believe in the Pax Americana and those who don’t.
A few years ago I’d have said I was in the latter camp. I hated the Iraq war, I looked in despair at first the neocons with their adventurism and then the tea party, Obamaites and MAGAs with their insularity. But from the Scripal poisonings onwards I realised I still believed that US hegemony is better than almost any other scenario. On that I have an odd collection of bedfellows from Boris Johnson to Paul Mason.
Pax Americana is the best stopgap until Australia is ready to step up to global leadership.
The worrying thing is that could happen in the event of a thermonuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. It would be Australia vs China for Hegemon.
Australia is already effectively part of NATO via AUKUS.
New Zealand is more neutral, Australia isn't
Nonsense. It isn't committed to defending Norway, is it?
Australia's main role is defending South Korea and Japan and with the US deterring China from threatening Taiwan.
However if Russia invaded Norway Australia would also almost certainly be involved in supporting NATO there too
That's sure one interpretation of military reality. How are they going to get there, from the Persian Gulf direct?
We have boats and planes now.
Same as the UK and France would be involved in supporting any US and Australian campaign if North Korea invaded South Korea or China invaded Japan
For my money, while the overall consensus continues to be for a long-running grind, there are enough straws in the wind to entertain the prospect of a possible “early” (ie 2023) Russian collapse.
I do find the Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument compelling. No-one wins long term by humiliating Russia. Defeat is humiliation enough.
I do favour a return to 1991 borders, but I can see a decent case for the resumption of the Kharkiv Pact allowing for Russian naval in Sebastopol, a commitment by Ukraine not to join NATO, and perhaps even some special status for Crimea and the Donbas, along the lines of Northern Ireland for example.
Long-term, our policy should aim to bring Russia into Western economic, political, and defence structures.
a russian collapse cant happen if ukraine is running out of artillery shells though...i think you are indulging in wishful thinking
Why not?
how does Ukraine advance without sufficient artillery
When the Russians have to fall back because they are taking too many casualties and are running out of supplies themselves.
For my money, while the overall consensus continues to be for a long-running grind, there are enough straws in the wind to entertain the prospect of a possible “early” (ie 2023) Russian collapse.
I do find the Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument compelling. No-one wins long term by humiliating Russia. Defeat is humiliation enough.
I do favour a return to 1991 borders, but I can see a decent case for the resumption of the Kharkiv Pact allowing for Russian naval in Sebastopol, a commitment by Ukraine not to join NATO, and perhaps even some special status for Crimea and the Donbas, along the lines of Northern Ireland for example.
Long-term, our policy should aim to bring Russia into Western economic, political, and defence structures.
a russian collapse cant happen if ukraine is running out of artillery shells though...i think you are indulging in wishful thinking
Why not?
how does Ukraine advance without sufficient artillery
When the Russians have to fall back because they are taking too many casualties and are running out of supplies themselves.
they have plenty of manpower and will be getting supplies from china...try harder
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Yes, if Russia had somehow replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime, that would have ended the dollar as a reserve currency.
Clearly your brain is even smaller than Vova Putin's shrivelled manhood.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Peace talks can start when every Russian soldier leaves Ukraine, and can start with how much reparation Russia is going to pay, when it will return any civilians it’s abducted and how it will guarantee not invading again…
mmm i suppose we can start peace talks when london has a mushroom cloud over it
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
For my money, while the overall consensus continues to be for a long-running grind, there are enough straws in the wind to entertain the prospect of a possible “early” (ie 2023) Russian collapse.
I do find the Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument compelling. No-one wins long term by humiliating Russia. Defeat is humiliation enough.
I do favour a return to 1991 borders, but I can see a decent case for the resumption of the Kharkiv Pact allowing for Russian naval in Sebastopol, a commitment by Ukraine not to join NATO, and perhaps even some special status for Crimea and the Donbas, along the lines of Northern Ireland for example.
Long-term, our policy should aim to bring Russia into Western economic, political, and defence structures.
a russian collapse cant happen if ukraine is running out of artillery shells though...i think you are indulging in wishful thinking
Why not?
how does Ukraine advance without sufficient artillery
When the Russians have to fall back because they are taking too many casualties and are running out of supplies themselves.
they have plenty of manpower and will be getting supplies from china...try harder
They are currently throwing fresh recruits into the meat grinder. And yes, we know the Russians are becoming cucks of China, but the Chinese are still a long way behind Western quality weapons.
'Graffius said: “There are probably more Conservative MPs who shoot than Labour MPs. They have more shooting constituents.”'
This chap is the executive director of communications and public affairs for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Got his finger on the political pulse. Quite handy when trying to explain why controls on shotguns are so pathetic in the view of many people.
"The biggest shooting organisation in the UK, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), is leading the opposition against a key reform wanted by victims’ families, police chiefs, the police watchdog and anti-gun campaigners."
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Peace talks can start when every Russian soldier leaves Ukraine, and can start with how much reparation Russia is going to pay, when it will return any civilians it’s abducted and how it will guarantee not invading again…
mmm i suppose we can start peace talks when london has a mushroom cloud over it
In which case Moscow would then have a Trident mushroom cloud over it shortly after
This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
I disagree. People are attracted by the money in the west but many despise the social policies in the west....from gay marriage and trans rights to extreme feminism....Putin alluded to this in his speech
Can you give us an example of extreme feminism? Is it along the lines of giving the gentle flowers the vote?
well constant banging on about a non existent pay gap is what many would count as extreme feminism...pure divisive rhetoric
Lol. if that is extreme feminism I would hate to think what you think mild is. Would we notice?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Peace talks can start when every Russian soldier leaves Ukraine, and can start with how much reparation Russia is going to pay, when it will return any civilians it’s abducted and how it will guarantee not invading again…
mmm i suppose we can start peace talks when london has a mushroom cloud over it
Haha. Putin isn't allowed to do a full mobilization by his oligarch minders. How is he gonna get a nuke launch past them? These nuclear threats are about as intimidating as his droopy pecks!
And yet give little apparent weight to the views of others have also experienced fighting, and who have proved rather closer to the mark in their predictions.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
If you tell me who the other posters are who have experienced fighting, I will weight their views accordingly.
I just posted the views of the former commander of a Marine tank battalion (from exactly a year ago). He’s consistently provided more accurate commentary than either Topping or Dura, probably because he has commanding experience in combined arms operations.
You also might have read the Politico article I’ve pointed out to you a couple of times today, which includes the views of the top US military officials.
Otherwise, feel free to ignore anything substantive that I post and continue with the rhetoric.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Yes, if Russia had somehow replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime, that would have ended the dollar as a reserve currency.
Clearly your brain is even smaller than Vova Putin's shrivelled manhood.
except i dont resort to playground insults...and maybe you feel inadequate as a man next to Putin
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Yes, if Russia had somehow replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime, that would have ended the dollar as a reserve currency.
Clearly your brain is even smaller than Vova Putin's shrivelled manhood.
except i dont resort to playground insults...and maybe you feel inadequate as a man next to Putin
The midget balding Gollum? I could have the stature of Danny DeVito and not feel physically intimidated!
This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
I disagree. People are attracted by the money in the west but many despise the social policies in the west....from gay marriage and trans rights to extreme feminism....Putin alluded to this in his speech
Can you give us an example of extreme feminism? Is it along the lines of giving the gentle flowers the vote?
well constant banging on about a non existent pay gap is what many would count as extreme feminism...pure divisive rhetoric
Lol. if that is extreme feminism I would hate to think what you think mild is. Would we notice?
so you think there is a pay gap do you...not true young women outearn young men in their 20s...thats extreme feminism twisting and denying reality
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
What if Putin is playing a longer game?
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
I'm wondering whether this is becoming a Forbes vs Regan battle.
Yousaf as the SNP establishment candidate and supporter of GRR is going to backfire bigly.
As well as his obfuscation re gay marriage vote, Forbes was honest even though she never had a vote whereas Useless who had a vote chose to wash his hair instead.
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
Just catching up on SNP It's a Knockout.
Alex Neil attacking Humza. Mhairi Black attacking Kate. Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
Russia’s governance model for centuries has been “strong men surrounding an autocrat” with a strong dose of Orthodox Christianity exceptionalism thrown in. The labels may have changed from aristocrat to oligarch and tsar to president, but the model is essentially the same.
It is the legacy of the Russian lands being united by Muscovy, and not Kiev or Novgorod. Russian culture is a criminal Muscovite one, built out of autocratic, Mongol-style rule. Russia can only be brought in from the cold if it abandons its current mentality and creates a new one in rejection of it, as Germany did after 1945.
More likely is that the Russian Empire breaks up, as Ukraine succeeds a la Poland or Czechia, and some regions want to recreate the success free of Moscow's dominance.
So is Russia right to see this as a battle for its own survival then? Putin is always described as a paranoid nutjob, but yet the long term plan for Russia from most US commentators, foreign policy wonks, and politicians (clearly the ones influencing your posts at any rate) always lead to the break up of Russia. And this is all well before the current conflict.
No, the battle for Russia's survival depends on whether it chooses to embrace a future as a democratic, decent nation or not. This war is inevitably lost because you can't endlessly occupy a country of 40 million people that hate you.
Also, your obsession with the US bogeyman behind everything is hilarious. My comments are my own judgments based on my knoweldge of Russian and Ukrainian history. The idea that some American congressman behind them is even more fanciful than Britain solving its vegetable shortage with fracking.
I was not suggesting that the US state thinks that you or your PB oeuvre are important enough to conspire to influence your opinions - I'm suggesting that they emerge from a voluntary diet of hawkish US commentary.
You make my point for me - Russia can behave itself or be broken up. By contrast, Turkey has occupied Cyprus illegally for decades, has occupied Syria illegally to get at the Kurds, has become a de facto dictatorship, and they get off scot-free. The Saudis are waging a brutal proxy war in Yemen, and actively spread a noxious salafist doctrine into UK mosques. They get patted on the back for letting women drive. Russia is a brute and a bully. It is a great shame for its neighbours,and deeply unfair. But the only real reason I can find for their public enemy number 1 status (before this conflict) is their implacable opposition to the expansion of US power. I can see why that would concern the US, but I see far less reason for the UK to be so invested in their defeat and collapse.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
What if Putin is playing a longer game?
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
Putin has played a clever game here. He has deliberately made the war one of attrition knowing Nato stocks of artillery etc is limited. He is drawing down Natos stocks whilst his factories run full tilt to supply the war effort. If strong...feign weakness....Putin is a master of this
I'm wondering whether this is becoming a Forbes vs Regan battle.
Yousaf as the SNP establishment candidate and supporter of GRR is going to backfire bigly.
As well as his obfuscation re gay marriage vote, Forbes was honest even though she never had a vote whereas Useless who had a vote chose to wash his hair instead.
For my money, while the overall consensus continues to be for a long-running grind, there are enough straws in the wind to entertain the prospect of a possible “early” (ie 2023) Russian collapse.
I do find the Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument compelling. No-one wins long term by humiliating Russia. Defeat is humiliation enough.
I do favour a return to 1991 borders, but I can see a decent case for the resumption of the Kharkiv Pact allowing for Russian naval in Sebastopol, a commitment by Ukraine not to join NATO, and perhaps even some special status for Crimea and the Donbas, along the lines of Northern Ireland for example.
Long-term, our policy should aim to bring Russia into Western economic, political, and defence structures.
There's a contradiction between saying we shouldn't humiliate Russia but bring it into Western structures, because from the perspective of Russians like Putin, that's precisely the scenario they regard as humiliating.
Do they regard being brought into European structures as humiliating, or just US-dominated ones? In many ways it would be desirable for the EU to form closer links with Russia itself - the influence on Russia could be democratising, economically-diversifying and pacifying, whilst Russia could provide access to its space programme, and massive energy supplies. This would be undesirable for the US, because it could result in a serious rival power bloc to the US. But not necessarily undesirable for the EU, or the UK - indeed as an outcome it would be a lot better than the de facto colonisation of Russia by China. At the moment, the prospect is far away, and the US (of course helped by Russia's own brutish actions) has successfully driven a wedge between Russia and Western Europe that has benefited its own foreign policy aims.
I think the idea of the EU seriously rivalling the US in another stretch again, but the general thinking here is reasonable and very switched on UK policymakers should be considering it.
In a way, the UK-Ukraine relationship could be the kernel of something like this.
(I have previously suggested that Ukraine’s joining NATO is not appropriate at this current moment, but entry into the Commonwealth is not a useless idea).
If you desire a negotiated peace, then Ukraine membership of NATO is possibly the only security guarantee they will accept. And they desire membership of the EU (which up was in quite a big way how this all kicked off). I’m not sure the Commonwealth would mean much to them.
NATO membership for Ukraine is dead in the water, if I'm correct and this ends with a Kashmiri solution - a ceasefire, where Russia holds onto its gains but both sides continue to make further claims against each other, i.e. a permanently frozen conflict. It could be achieved as part of a grand bargain, in which Ukraine lets Putin keep his conquests in exchange for a treaty in which Russia concedes Ukrainian strategic autonomy, and NATO then admits Ukraine (Russian promises obviously being worthless, but membership of NATO being priceless, as the Baltic States have discovered.) But somehow I don't see Ukraine ever conceding all that territory.
I think NATO membership would be extremely likely if post war Russia remained any kind of immediate threat. After all, NATO membership was given to the Federal Republic of Germany even though they did not control a good third of the recognized German lands, and it is the only guarantee that Kyiv could accept after the abject failure of the Budapest memorandum. No one will trust Russian good faith, so only good fences can make good neighbours.
The post-war German situation was rather different. The zones of occupation were recognised by both the Soviet Union and the Western powers and clearly demarcated; indeed, the East German state itself was eventually recognised diplomatically by the Western allies. Thus the borders of East Germany, whilst representing frontiers between the rival power blocs, did not take the form of a ceasefire line or line of control in a frozen conflict, such as the eventual border between free Ukraine and its occupied territories will be should the Ukrainian military prove unable to expel Russia wholly from its internationally recognised borders.
Under such circumstances, I would expect the unoccupied portion of Ukraine to integrate de facto but not de jure with the Western military alliance. Admission to NATO won't be forthcoming, but the Ukrainians will benefit from aid with economic reconstruction and the acquisition of advanced military training and equipment such that they will become far too strong an opponent for Russia to attempt to overcome with its crippled economic base and much reduced conventional capabilities. There's also no particular reason why Ukraine could not eventually join the European Union, although that will require a very lengthy programme of civil reform and legislative preparation and is only a realistic aim in the long term.
I think that NATO accession only comes with a formal bargain with Russia, but that would require the Ukrainians to cede territory and the Russians to admit that Ukraine has been permanently lost to the Western sphere, and I don't think either side is willing to make such compromises.
The point I tried to make was that it could be part of an interim post war settlement. NATO membership under such circumstances could be a very live issue. The Russian annexation means that there is no "East Ukraine" (and in any event the DDR was not generally recognized until the detente era of the early 1970s).
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
Dont forget the democratically elected leader of ukraine was overthrown in 2014 in a us backed coup. No Russias main fear is NATO on their backdoor with nuclear weapons in Ukraine...it is the US who are worried about the US dollar as reserve currency...lose this and the US standard of living collapses...
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
Just catching up on SNP It's a Knockout.
Alex Neil attacking Humza. Mhairi Black attacking Kate. Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
Good that ASh knows who the villain is, Humza is as forgetful as Imelda, Mhairi Black is a sandwich short of a picnic gravy trainer.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Yes, if Russia had somehow replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime, that would have ended the dollar as a reserve currency.
Clearly your brain is even smaller than Vova Putin's shrivelled manhood.
except i dont resort to playground insults...and maybe you feel inadequate as a man next to Putin
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
What if Putin is playing a longer game?
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
Putin has played a clever game here. He has deliberately made the war one of attrition knowing Nato stocks of artillery etc is limited. He is drawing down Natos stocks whilst his factories run full tilt to supply the war effort. If strong...feign weakness....Putin is a master of this
He is certainly doing an excellent job of it so far. Ably assisted by his forces dying in large numbers to support the ruse.
I'm wondering whether this is becoming a Forbes vs Regan battle.
Yousaf as the SNP establishment candidate and supporter of GRR is going to backfire bigly.
As well as his obfuscation re gay marriage vote, Forbes was honest even though she never had a vote whereas Useless who had a vote chose to wash his hair instead.
Surely Forbes would be more at home in the DUP?
That is so stupid and uneducated it does not merit a reply, but I will Bollocks!
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
What if Putin is playing a longer game?
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
That's an interesting point, but there might be a big flaw in it: that longer game also hurts Russia. Whilst this continues, it is unlikely that any substantive sanctions will be removed from Russia; in fact they may get further tightened. In addition, they'll be losing more young men.
If Putin is playing that as a long game, it might be one where neither he nor Ukraine win, but both lose.
As a side issue, haven't Russia stopped the power infrastructure attacks recently, and concentrated on other targets?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
Dont forget the democratically elected leader of ukraine was overthrown in 2014 in a us backed coup. No Russias main fear is NATO on their backdoor with nuclear weapons in Ukraine...it is the US who are worried about the US dollar as reserve currency...lose this and the US standard of living collapses...
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
Give them their due. None of them have either believed a pile of RT balls, or spouted it knowing that it's balls.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
Give them their due. None of them have either believed a pile of RT balls, or spouted it knowing that it's balls.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
He was just trying to make t'rouble.
By the way we must not stoop to hatred of indivdual russians. Many are good people and the hatred directed at them by some people is irrational. Hate the govt sure but not the people.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
No fan of any of them but I think it would be slanderous to imply they plumbed the depth of RWatson's intelligence......somewhere in the world there is a village entirely populated by village idiots and they are searching and shouting for RWatson to comeback as they miss their village idiot, the one man in the whole world that makes them each feel like a towering intellect
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
He was just trying to make t'rouble.
By the way we must not stoop to hatred of indivdual russians. Many are good people and the hatred directed at them by some people is irrational. Hate the govt sure but not the people.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
He was just trying to make t'rouble.
By the way we must not stoop to hatred of indivdual russians. Many are good people and the hatred directed at them by some people is irrational. Hate the govt sure but not the people.
Could you give us a summary of the reasons why you do think it is justified to hate the Russian government?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
He was just trying to make t'rouble.
By the way we must not stoop to hatred of indivdual russians. Many are good people and the hatred directed at them by some people is irrational. Hate the govt sure but not the people.
That's a weird non-sequitur.
well there seems to be an irrational hatred of russians by certain "types" of people
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
Apart from anything else, soldiers very often prepare for the last one, not the next one. Ukraine isn't Basra in the noughties nor Belfast.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
No fan of any of them but I think it would be slanderous to imply they plumbed the depth of RWatson's intelligence......somewhere in the world there is a village entirely populated by village idiots and they are searching and shouting for RWatson to comeback as they miss their village idiot, the one man in the whole world that makes them each feel like a towering intellect
I disagree.
Richard Burgon didn't know Labour lost the 2017 election Amanda Spielman doesn't know what safeguarding is and somehow ended up saying there was a case for not seeing girls being blackmailed into sexting as a safeguarding issue. RT is, well...
I am content with my comment.
What's altogether more disturbing is such genuinely stupid people have got to any sort of position of power.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
He was just trying to make t'rouble.
By the way we must not stoop to hatred of indivdual russians. Many are good people and the hatred directed at them by some people is irrational. Hate the govt sure but not the people.
That's a weird non-sequitur.
well there seems to be an irrational hatred of russians by certain "types" of people
It's still a weird non-sequitur.
Were you trying to quote a different comment, or are you just spouting random stuff a la Spielman?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
You’ve admitted a slightly higher standard of bot in recent months. What’s happened with this one ? It doesn’t seem to be fully functioning.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
No fan of any of them but I think it would be slanderous to imply they plumbed the depth of RWatson's intelligence......somewhere in the world there is a village entirely populated by village idiots and they are searching and shouting for RWatson to comeback as they miss their village idiot, the one man in the whole world that makes them each feel like a towering intellect
I disagree.
Richard Burgon didn't know Labour lost the 2017 election Amanda Spielman doesn't know what safeguarding is and somehow ended up saying there was a case for not seeing girls being blackmailed into sexting as a safeguarding issue. RT is, well...
I am content with my comment.
What's altogether more disturbing is such genuinely stupid people have got to any sort of position of power.
On that we can agree but I have to ask given a hard choice of two would you choose RWatson or R Burgon
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
Just catching up on SNP It's a Knockout.
Alex Neil attacking Humza. Mhairi Black attacking Kate. Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
Good that ASh knows who the villain is, Humza is as forgetful as Imelda, Mhairi Black is a sandwich short of a picnic gravy trainer.
Good evening Malc
What a mess the SNP have got into
You do not need to tell me but I am really interested in which of the three you will vote for, or indeed abstain as I did when the choice was Johnson v Hunt
Time to call out the DUP and ERG and do the deal Rishi
The ERG (and its precursors) have played an absolute blinder throughout, from getting the referendum in the first place, to getting the Leave/Remain question, to campaigning for Cab Mins to be able to support Leave, to preventing the May deal getting through Parliament, etc etc.
If Rishi's deal is less than optimum for the UK, the ERG will call it out. And it will hasten his departure....
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
No fan of any of them but I think it would be slanderous to imply they plumbed the depth of RWatson's intelligence......somewhere in the world there is a village entirely populated by village idiots and they are searching and shouting for RWatson to comeback as they miss their village idiot, the one man in the whole world that makes them each feel like a towering intellect
I disagree.
Richard Burgon didn't know Labour lost the 2017 election Amanda Spielman doesn't know what safeguarding is and somehow ended up saying there was a case for not seeing girls being blackmailed into sexting as a safeguarding issue. RT is, well...
I am content with my comment.
What's altogether more disturbing is such genuinely stupid people have got to any sort of position of power.
On that we can agree but I have to ask given a hard choice of two would you choose RWatson or R Burgon
Hmmm.
Well true.
Possibly Burgon on the grounds his stupidity is quite entertaining?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
You’ve admitted a slightly higher standard of bot in recent months. What’s happened with this one ? It doesn’t seem to be fully functioning.
Time to call out the DUP and ERG and do the deal Rishi
The ERG (and its precursors) have played an absolute blinder throughout, from getting the referendum in the first place, to getting the Leave/Remain question, to campaigning for Cab Mins to be able to support Leave, to preventing the May deal getting through Parliament, etc etc.
If Rishi's deal is less than optimum for the UK, the ERG will call it out. And it will hasten his departure....
I’d like it to be true, but I don’t see how Russia loses this “outright”
Putin has successfully made the war existential. Therefore Russian defeat in Ukraine is the conquest of Russia. That cannot happen because Russian is a great power WITH NUKES. Even if Putin is toppled no replacement will be allowed to negotiate “surrender”
This is Korean War 2.0. Quagmire and Armistice beckons, eventually
Pretty much. Apart from anything else, Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder.
It all ends with partition along a line of control as per Kashmir, with neither side recognising the territory held by the other de jure, but an accommodation being reached de facto. The 80% of Ukraine that remains unoccupied will then be pumped so full of cash and weapons that the cost of trying to resume the war of conquest at some point in the future will be too steep for Putin or his successors to stomach.
This state having been reached, the key challenge will then be to maintain a degree of unity with respect to the ostracism of Russia. Fundamentally, this is a fascist state with a fascist leadership and an overwhelmingly fascist-sympathising population: the existence of a handful of doomed internal dissidents and Pussy Riot does nothing to alter the fact that most Russians back both Putin and his imperial ambitions to the hilt. There will have to be a lot of determined diplomacy to prevent potential backsliders like Italy and Germany from trying to resume antebellum positions on trade and appeasement.
"Russia has an almost limitless supply of cannon fodder."
I'm far from convinced that's the case. Look at the Second World War: Germany had over 700,000 men in the Caucus in January 1943; the Soviets had a million. And that was just one front for both. The Ukraine war might be the largest land war we've seen for some years, but it's tiny compared to past wars.
Russia is, and wants to remain, a modern society. The modern world requires so many more skilled people than war did 80 years ago: there are loads of jobs that simply did not exist, but are critical to society and to war. We can't just send the Bevan Boys in to perform them as it takes years to learn the skills.
Then there are the demographic issues mentioned below.
The same also applies to Ukraine, as it happens.
I think this is spot on.
The pool of "talent" for Russia to draw upon is:
Men, aged 17 to 30, in decent physical shape, who don't have important jobs that are required for the war effort, and who haven't fled the country.
Russia's population pyramid is narrowest in the 20-24 (i.e. the prime fighting age) segment.
And a significant chunk of that group has already been called up, has been killed or injured, has fled, or is otherwise unsuitable for fighting.
The Russians have been enlisting prisoners, people who are HIV+ or have tuberculosis. These are not the actions of a country with unlimited cannon fodder.
And even if they did have another million men (which is half the number of Russian men in their early twenties), if they are unsupported, unsupplied, barely trained, and attacking entrenched defenders with Western weapons, then it's not going to end well for them.
At some point, the flow of shells dries up. At some point, too many artillery pieces have been destroyed by HIMARS or just by the warping of barrels from constant firing. At some point, going to the front is considered such a death sentence, that people would fancy their chances fighting the internal police.
At some point, waging offensive war no longer becomes an option for the Russians. Now, it may be they can then defend their positions in a long war of attrition and frozen fronts. Or it may be that long range artillery makes those dug in positions far from Russia and far from working railheads impossible to supply.
And then the war stops, one way or another.
And at that point Putin (or his even madder successor) drops a test nuke over the Black Sea and says Peace Now
Then what? We would agree to a peace, at that point. Probably something like Korea
For your preferred outcome to play out you must assume that Russian will NEVER use nukes even when faced with humiliating defeat. A very very dangerous assumption
It's not my "preferred outcome", I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "Russia has unlimited resources to throw into the conflict" brigade, of which you are a member.
Russia does not have unlimited resources.
The fact is we're all guessing, and at times we've all been wrong. If I tally my beliefs vs what actually happened:
- I expected the invasion and wasn't surprised by that - I thought Ukraine would be overrun in days and was surprised by their resilience - When Russia withdrew from Kiev I expected stalemate but actually Russia went on to capture Severodonetsk - I was surprised like most by the rapid Ukrainian advances in the NE but not surprised when Kherson fell - But then unpleasantly surprised at how Russia fought back and started to advance again in the East
Now most people expect stalemate but a few expect a successful Ukrainian offensive in spring. It's really too difficult to tell.
It is very unpredictable. I don't know what will happen and don't know what is for the best (which I define as the course that minimises human suffering).
Curiously, PB.com is full of people who do know what will happen and are very convinced that they are right.
Is it ? Most express the same uncertainty about outcomes as you; they just disagree about actions. Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
On the bright side, it does appear from the piece that superior intelligence information makes the US a great deal better at judging the probabilities of outcomes in Ukraine than the rest of us - including most European leaders.
Topping appears also to have the habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with him as a PB armchair general.
Fair enough, surely.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
If you have fought in a war, you do bring rather different insights to the table.
So, I kinda weight their views more than someone who has only seen active service from the Morrisons in Cambourne.
Aw, shucks. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
The problem with that is that *their* experience will also be limited. True, they might have more knowledge than myself, but knowing how to land a plane on an aircraft carrier does not inform you of the way tanks might be used to create a bridgehead; or being a sergeant in a trench does not tell you the nest way to target missile strikes on critical enemy infrastructure. They may know a lot about things like how to fire a gun or how to lead a platoon in an attack, but that's not much help with the bigger-picture stuff that we're mostly interested in.
Take Topping's argument that Russia is not running out of kit (say, artillery and missiles). He may be right and they are not. But if he is right, he has failed to explain why we're seeing fewer missile attacks on Ukraine, why Russia appears to be using much less artillery, and why they seem to be using much older kit.
I've provided a possible explanation - that Russia is holding back the material ready for a big assault - but he even ignores that. (I think there may be valid arguments against that counter-argument, but that's another matter).
I don't know what Topping did in the army, but even if he was an expert on Russian tanks, the situation with Russia's tanks and their storage will have changed and developed in the last couple of decades, assuming he has not recently left the forces. And if he knows a great deal about tanks, he might know very little about missiles, or artillery systems etc.
So whilst I thank him and everyone who has served the country in the military (especially if they have been deployed to warzones), and will defer to their expertise in areas they're expert in, I'd treat 'evidence' they give in areas outside their areas of expertise with less certainty.
What if Putin is playing a longer game?
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
That's an interesting point, but there might be a big flaw in it: that longer game also hurts Russia. Whilst this continues, it is unlikely that any substantive sanctions will be removed from Russia; in fact they may get further tightened. In addition, they'll be losing more young men.
If Putin is playing that as a long game, it might be one where neither he nor Ukraine win, but both lose.
As a side issue, haven't Russia stopped the power infrastructure attacks recently, and concentrated on other targets?
One aspect of the big picture here is that Russia has largely destroyed the bit of its economy previously based on selling hydrocarbons to Europe. Thanks to a mixture of LNG, renewables and efficiency, there's just much less need to pump stuff in from the east. And that need is falling all the time. Some of that business will come back should the Russian government successfully reapply for membership of the human race, but some of it has gone forever.
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
Just catching up on SNP It's a Knockout.
Alex Neil attacking Humza. Mhairi Black attacking Kate. Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
Good that ASh knows who the villain is, Humza is as forgetful as Imelda, Mhairi Black is a sandwich short of a picnic gravy trainer.
Good evening Malc
What a mess the SNP have got into
You do not need to tell me but I am really interested in which of the three you will vote for, or indeed abstain as I did when the choice was Johnson v Hunt
Hello G , I am not a member , I would not give the Murrells a penny of my cash, so do not have a vote. For certain it would not be Humza who is the Murrells sockpuppet. Of the two women I have never seen Forbes challenge any Sturgeon order an dsh educked teh GRR vote, whereas Regan resigned rather than vot efor GRR so if I had a vote it would be Regan.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
You’ve admitted a slightly higher standard of bot in recent months. What’s happened with this one ? It doesn’t seem to be fully functioning.
Yeah, we are being insulted by such a pisspoor troll.
Russia has obviously run out of the articulate ones, alongside 21st century tanks, missiles, and missile cruisers.
Time to call out the DUP and ERG and do the deal Rishi
The ERG (and its precursors) have played an absolute blinder throughout, from getting the referendum in the first place, to getting the Leave/Remain question, to campaigning for Cab Mins to be able to support Leave, to preventing the May deal getting through Parliament, etc etc.
If Rishi's deal is less than optimum for the UK, the ERG will call it out. And it will hasten his departure....
The time has come for Rishi to act in the best interest of all those in Northern Ireland and if the ERG don't like it then tough
They can attempt to bring Rishi down but they are unlikely to succeed, and in any case the toxic Johnson and diabolical Truss have handed Starmer the keys to no 10 and the first action he would take is to do Rishi's deal
Pink Floyd Roger Waters says that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and the rest of the Warmongering Neocons in Washington along with the vassal states in NATO are the principal provocateurs of the Ukraine/Russia War.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
Dont forget the democratically elected leader of ukraine was overthrown in 2014 in a us backed coup. No Russias main fear is NATO on their backdoor with nuclear weapons in Ukraine...it is the US who are worried about the US dollar as reserve currency...lose this and the US standard of living collapses...
You said "this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency".
Are you saying that Ukraine is just the beginning for Russia as it seeks to overthrow the hegemony of the US Dollar?
Time to call out the DUP and ERG and do the deal Rishi
The ERG (and its precursors) have played an absolute blinder throughout, from getting the referendum in the first place, to getting the Leave/Remain question, to campaigning for Cab Mins to be able to support Leave, to preventing the May deal getting through Parliament, etc etc.
If Rishi's deal is less than optimum for the UK, the ERG will call it out. And it will hasten his departure....
I don't agree, the ERG became hyper-radicalised and dogmatic somewhere along the way.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Bollocks. B%¤ger off, troll.
plenty more intelligent people than me say this...improve your understanding of the world my friend
You are implying there are people less intelligent than you? I dont think plankton actually counts as people
Richard Burgon, Amanda Spielman and Andrew RT Davies have all just entered this conversation.
As founder of the Royal Society For The Protection of the Reputation Of Small Organisms, please could you stop insulting plankton.
If you feed whales with plankton you get happy whales.
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
Dont forget the democratically elected leader of ukraine was overthrown in 2014 in a us backed coup. No Russias main fear is NATO on their backdoor with nuclear weapons in Ukraine...it is the US who are worried about the US dollar as reserve currency...lose this and the US standard of living collapses...
You said "this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency".
Are you saying that Ukraine is just the beginning for Russia as it seeks to overthrow the hegemony of the US Dollar?
Pink Floyd Roger Waters says that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and the rest of the Warmongering Neocons in Washington along with the vassal states in NATO are the principal provocateurs of the Ukraine/Russia War.
How did the SNP end up with just these 3 candidates ?
It really is a poor choice for their membership to chose from and Labour must think Christmas has come early .
The choice being Mr Angry , Miss Bible Basher and Miss Non-entity .
All 3 are Titans compared to the dross in Labour. You have obviously zero knowledge of Scottish politics and the Labour London regional sockpuppet party.
Just catching up on SNP It's a Knockout.
Alex Neil attacking Humza. Mhairi Black attacking Kate. Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
Good that ASh knows who the villain is, Humza is as forgetful as Imelda, Mhairi Black is a sandwich short of a picnic gravy trainer.
Good evening Malc
What a mess the SNP have got into
You do not need to tell me but I am really interested in which of the three you will vote for, or indeed abstain as I did when the choice was Johnson v Hunt
Hello G , I am not a member , I would not give the Murrells a penny of my cash, so do not have a vote. For certain it would not be Humza who is the Murrells sockpuppet. Of the two women I have never seen Forbes challenge any Sturgeon order an dsh educked teh GRR vote, whereas Regan resigned rather than vot efor GRR so if I had a vote it would be Regan.
Thanks for that Malc and it does seem as if Sturgeon resigning has put the cat amongst the pigeons
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Now I'm still down with the idea of International Socialism, and I think there's a lot to oppose in the international conduct of western countries, but, when push comes to shove I would choose the capitalist imperialism of the USA, over the authoritarian imperialism of Russia, China, or whoever else, if International Socialism isn't available. So, yes, sign me up for the Pax Americana, as a last resort, too.
As a liar.
If it's members of the regime or government, then their government has decided it's better to be closer to Russia than the west, for whatever reasons.
Same as the UK and France would be involved in supporting any US and Australian campaign if North Korea invaded South Korea or China invaded Japan
Labour's Keir Starmer is the best communicator out of any of the party leaders, the man who makes me feel sleepy.
Clearly your brain is even smaller than Vova Putin's shrivelled manhood.
'Graffius said: “There are probably more Conservative MPs who shoot than Labour MPs. They have more shooting constituents.”'
This chap is the executive director of communications and public affairs for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Got his finger on the political pulse. Quite handy when trying to explain why controls on shotguns are so pathetic in the view of many people.
"The biggest shooting organisation in the UK, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), is leading the opposition against a key reform wanted by victims’ families, police chiefs, the police watchdog and anti-gun campaigners."
You also might have read the Politico article I’ve pointed out to you a couple of times today, which includes the views of the top US military officials.
Otherwise, feel free to ignore anything substantive that I post and continue with the rhetoric.
The longer the war lasts, the more it will become about economics, industrial production and maintaining a supply of men. (The electricity grid attacks are likely meant to disrupt UA industrial production, I guess, rather than leave civilians in the dark).
Based on my limited knowledge of economic linkages between Ukraine and Russia (almost a decade old, so also out of date), freezing the conflict here will deprive Ukraine of about 40% of her pre-war economy.
It's possible Putin could live with that as Ukraine would become entirely reliant upon EU economic aid, and US and NATO assistance over the long term.
This long term incremental approach would suggest that Russia has no need to win a knock out victory on the battlefield as they think they have time on their hands.
Unless they thought that game changing armaments were about to alter the balance on the battlefield.
Alex Neil attacking Humza.
Mhairi Black attacking Kate.
Ash attacking Peter Murrell.
Hmm.
If a test of leadership is securing your own succession then Nicola is not quite measuring up to Eck.
I'm quite at a loss to know who of these three is going to emerge blinking into the sunlight, but their first act will surely be to get someone to remove the knives from their back and wash the blood from the walls.
You make my point for me - Russia can behave itself or be broken up. By contrast, Turkey has occupied Cyprus illegally for decades, has occupied Syria illegally to get at the Kurds, has become a de facto dictatorship, and they get off scot-free. The Saudis are waging a brutal proxy war in Yemen, and actively spread a noxious salafist doctrine into UK mosques. They get patted on the back for letting women drive. Russia is a brute and a bully. It is a great shame for its neighbours,and deeply unfair. But the only real reason I can find for their public enemy number 1 status (before this conflict) is their implacable opposition to the expansion of US power. I can see why that would concern the US, but I see far less reason for the UK to be so invested in their defeat and collapse.
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
If Putin is playing that as a long game, it might be one where neither he nor Ukraine win, but both lose.
As a side issue, haven't Russia stopped the power infrastructure attacks recently, and concentrated on other targets?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64763303
I think we need DJ41’s view on this, as one inhabiting the more sophisticated and UK- experienced echelons of the cyber warfare outfit.
Won't go bail for them in private.
Then Jerico - Big Area
Richard Burgon didn't know Labour lost the 2017 election
Amanda Spielman doesn't know what safeguarding is and somehow ended up saying there was a case for not seeing girls being blackmailed into sexting as a safeguarding issue.
RT is, well...
I am content with my comment.
What's altogether more disturbing is such genuinely stupid people have got to any sort of position of power.
Were you trying to quote a different comment, or are you just spouting random stuff a la Spielman?
What’s happened with this one ? It doesn’t seem to be fully functioning.
What a mess the SNP have got into
You do not need to tell me but I am really interested in which of the three you will vote for, or indeed abstain as I did when the choice was Johnson v Hunt
If Rishi's deal is less than optimum for the UK, the ERG will call it out. And it will hasten his departure....
Well true.
Possibly Burgon on the grounds his stupidity is quite entertaining?
And power really needs prosperity to sustain it.
https://twitter.com/Blokeonabike2/status/1629141324657049601?s=20
Russia has obviously run out of the articulate ones, alongside 21st century tanks, missiles, and missile cruisers.
They are down to the barrel bottom.
They can attempt to bring Rishi down but they are unlikely to succeed, and in any case the toxic Johnson and diabolical Truss have handed Starmer the keys to no 10 and the first action he would take is to do Rishi's deal
Canada has a land border with two countries. The United States is obvious. Which is the other?
'The war is going far worse than is generally known.'
https://twitter.com/TheThe1776/status/1628263166655483905?s=20
Are you saying that Ukraine is just the beginning for Russia as it seeks to overthrow the hegemony of the US Dollar?
I'm now sick to the back teeth of them.
If you feed whales with plankton you get happy whales.
If you fed Richard Burgon to a whale….
You are correct, it is Greenland/Denmark.