I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
You can't abuse the asylum system to migrate for economic reasons. You claim asylum, and if you don't have a valid claim, it's rejected.
I have no idea who you believe is suggesting the patronising, unjust and mendacious point above, but I'm not. Keeping illegal immigration illegal is not the same thing as closing all legal routes to enter the country in order to claim asylum. If politicians wanted to deal with legitimate concerns about economic migration then the obvious step would be to establish safe legal routes for claiming asylum and to resource the system adequately so that asylum claims could be heard quickly. I assume at that point there would be no complaints about the roughly 70% of asylum seekers whose claim for asylum is upheld being integrated into UK society.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
I suspect more like Iraq than Afghanistan. Russia could set up a Green Zone, including puppet government, in Kyiv, and a few other bases, but everywhere else is contested.
They also have a decision to make about West Ukraine. If they don't control that their western flank will be exposed and Poland is at one remove.
Which of course would beg the question we're already asking - why bother.
And do we really think Putin's game plan is to have an inkspot strategy in Ukraine. Not what all that armour says.
Intriguing for military historians in time to come.
I think Putin believed his own bullshit. He thought that - particularly in Eastern Ukraine - that his soldiers would be welcomed as liberators.
No, I don't think it's that - he's quite prepared to crush civilian opposition - but he thought the armed forces of Ukraine were poorly organised, with shoddy equipment, as they were in 2014.
I've not kept up with all the discussions on PB because of work. But two things have come in to my mind.
1. Russia will probably win- in the sense that they will be successful in invading Ukraine. They've advanced through a large part of Ukraine in a week. In any normal circumstances (where the opposing side does not control the narrative about the war) it would look like a cakewalk. The danger is that by focusing on well publicised errors we convince ourselves that Russia aren't going to win. They are, they always were. We shouldn't get too disappointed if they eventually do.
2. The problem will come for Russia when they do win. What then? We established yesterday that support for Pro Russian parties was about 16% in the most recent parliamentary election (2019). By hiving off Crimea and the Donbass, Putin has reduced the part of Ukraine favourable to him to a small minority, and the invasion including the attacks on civilians is hardly going to increase this number. How could that ever be the basis of a legitimate government in Ukraine?
I would say that the military losses, financial sanctions and global isolation are just the very beginning of Putins problems.
Very good post.
If as looks likely if not probable the aim is to enter Kiev and install a puppet government then they are back to Afghan. A huge military presence to subdue a revolting population.
The West might be tempted at that point to sit back and let that situation take its toll. It cannot use NATO-member Poland for any sponsoring of insurgency as that would bring Poland into play and in his current apparent mood Putin might have certain views about that.
But could Russia actually invade Poland?
It would have far fewer forces, because they'd mostly be tied down in Ukraine. And they would be facing a far better equipped enemy.
True and the alternatives therefore are pretty grisly to contemplate.
The West has said that once NATO territory gets invaded, all bets are off. We are in, lock stock and barrel.
Now look at how the West is acting in Ukraine.
Do you believe our leaders? Or will they look for an excuse not to commit? Leave the Poles to themselves while we cheer from the sidelines and worry about nuclear war?
OOh and triple secret sanctions, this time.
Yes, of course I believe it.
We entered into a treaty, and we've put boots on the ground in Estonia and Poland.
If Russia invades Poland or Estonia (and given their experiences in Ukraine, I suspect that is vanishingly unlikely now), then we are at war with Russia, and British troops and aircraft will be fighting their Russian counterparts.
That's what NATO means.
I am also not totally convinced by the suggestion Putin would have invaded Poland, even before the Ukraine disaster. Far more likely would be the Baltics and even then we are bringing NATO into the equation.
If he hadn’t received the force of reaction to his Ukraine move then I do think he would have started making noises about the Baltics and playing brinkmanship. He may start getting designs on Moldova and Georgia. The remainder of Eastern Europe? Not convinced that was ever his intention.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media for all sorts of wrong or poorly thought out ideas......often led by Piers Moron.
Piers Morgan is a national treasure. Always wrong is a valuable skill.
The media really does have a responsibility to explain what this would mean. Not just the “we’d be at each with Russia” bit but also the “the U.K. can’t implement such a thing alone, and neither can any other country save the US” bit,
Take a moment.
Think about the coverage of the pandemic.
So, you want the same people to deliver a balanced, fact based report on the issues?
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
I’m up for confiscating the aristocracy’s wealth.
I'm not. I think you get more flies with honey, and I believe in creating a system which gently but inexorably encourages the very wealthy to become givers and responsibility takers in society. Remember that the robber barons of centuries past did become the gentry, ending up employing all those people and taking active responsibility for the communities that they were part of.
So, if the great-great-great-great grandkids of the Russian oligarchs employ a few servants, it doesn’t matter how those oligarchs got rich and there’s no problem with giving them visas?
You're using hyperbole, but if the fortune was acquired legally in Russia, and the oligarch checks out legally, then yes. At present you seem to be saying the richer the individual the less likely a candidate they are to come here. I find that counter-productive.
We are operating to a clearly defined set of rules understood by both sides. We (as NATO) will not start shooting at Russian armed forces unless they actually move onto NATO territory. This is how we avoid a general nuclear war.
Now it is of course possible that Putin is intent on eventually attacking NATO directly - though I suspect that after what he has seen in Ukraine he will be rethinking that. It is also possible he sees a nuclear war as inevitable in which case we are all screwed.
But for now he has not crossed that line. We cannot be the ones to cross it. If he attacks any NATO country then all bets are off and I would suggest everyone finds a very deep hole to die in but until then we need to hope our own leaders have enough sense to realise that this is not something we can win. In a direct war between NATO and Russia everyone loses.
Thus far, Russian forces have been scrupulously careful to avoid any hint of contact with NATO forces or NATO territory. As long as that remains the case, irrespective of what the bellicose "we must stand up to the bully" brigade might want, the fighting can be confined to the Ukraine.
I doubt there are very few in Russia who want nuclear war or would be prepared to initiate one. I suspect if Putin gets anywhere near it, he will be removed.
There are, I hope, very few who want nuclear war in the West though you'd be surprised looking at social media. As long as we do not commit any forces to the Ukraine (including a No Fly Zone) a wider and far more serious conflict can be avoided.
There's an enormous tragedy for Ukraine and its people which has been and will continue to be played out - we have to ensure it doesn't become a far wider and greater tragedy.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
You've never commented beyond what your personal expertise, even in an area of strength for you, might suggest? A rare individual indeed.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
Thinking alowed now, rather than proposing this, but,
Could we start a 'No Fly Zone', over the western part of Ukraine,
Officerly to protect refugees, but also to allow us to fly weapons more directly to Ukraine rather than having to derive all the way form Poland?
Would that trigger a response? at the moment most of the Russian planes seem to be in the east or centre. Putin might look silly if he tyres to shoot down UK planes but doesn't have the ability?
Then we could slowly/incrementally move the edge east?
For a no fly zone to have any significance you have to enforce it. That means you have to be willing and able to shoot down any aircraft that breach it. They then respond by bombing NATO missile defence systems and suddenly we are in a shooting war with Russia.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrkes in Kosovo
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
And the linked story didn't say it was, either... " the ambush - said to have been carried out by troops armed with NLAW missile launchers. Artillery and drone strikes are also thought to have been deployed in the attack".
Someone googled it to make a point, and triggered you.
There's better reporting on selected bits of Twitter than in quite a lot of mainstream media.
It was like I was back at Netheravon...
And yes but it's like the advertising thing isn't it. 50% of it is great, the problem is...
Netheravon Wiltshire? I went to a lovely pub there once. Twice, actually. Actually, just looked it up. It was Upavon, not Netheravon. The Ship, it was called.
The other point to mention here is that I’m not entirely sure that Putin’s endgame was really to merely establish client states in Ukraine (and Belarus). I think what he would really, really like is for Ukraine and Belarus to be part of Russia, either like a Soviet confederation or even via wholesale incorporation as one or more federal subjects.
The latter would have even more advantageous as it would right what he sees as a historic “wrong” that was perpetrated when the Soviet constitution allowed for secession of constituent SSRs (thanks Conrade Lenin!) and which he at least partly blames for the dissolution of the USSR.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
So people in the UK can share that rubble-living experience with Ukraine...
Pillocks. No Fly Zone = War With Russia which may or may not = Mutually Assured Destruction. Whilst it is tempting to say "C'mon down!" to a scenario which has Piers Morgan vaporised in a millionth of a second, I'd prefer something somewhat slower for him - and which his pain receptors have time to process....
If you are afraid of Russia pushing the nuclear button now, as you clearly are, then you will never oppose Russia.
Not in Ukraine. Not in Poland. Not in Germany. Not even in Kent.
Don't worry. They get that. That's why the are in Ukraine, doing whatever they want. Because they know you are afraid and you will never fight back.
Jesus, you are an insufferable twat.
They are in Ukraine because they have a madman determined to leave his mark on history. He will stop at Ukraine because....NATO. Meanwhile, we just let his country crumble from the inside out. Sanctions. And weaponry that keeps his shitty underpowered army bogged down.
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
No - he/she (they?!) have to stay. It is a very good logic check to have such issues raised.
If Putin invades Poland, say, that is very very likely it, the end, MAD. Now, we might easily say it's worth all dying in order to maintain whatever principle we went into the game with but it is useful for all of us to ponder these questions.
Agreed.
My view, FWIW, is that the line has to be drawn. Putin must know now that he'd lose a conventional war against a united NATO miserably - and just as importantly, so must his generals.
To put it another way, if he says "let me be world dictator, or I'll nuke the planet", will his underlings go along with that, if the West says no ?
By the way, in answer to peoples’ questions without swearing at them, NLAW is a light weapon designed to sit with infantry and act as a bit of a last line of defence when the tanks are already on top of you. Against heavy armour, you would expect to see the hit on the top side of the vehicle but it won’t blow it to bits. Javelin is longer range, reusable, and more destructive, but will fix you in place a bit more. Neither of them will help against artillery engaging from range.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
You can't abuse the asylum system to migrate for economic reasons. You claim asylum, and if you don't have a valid claim, it's rejected.
I have no idea who you believe is suggesting the patronising, unjust and mendacious point above, but I'm not. Keeping illegal immigration illegal is not the same thing as closing all legal routes to enter the country in order to claim asylum. If politicians wanted to deal with legitimate concerns about economic migration then the obvious step would be to establish safe legal routes for claiming asylum and to resource the system adequately so that asylum claims could be heard quickly. I assume at that point there would be no complaints about the roughly 70% of asylum seekers whose claim for asylum is upheld being integrated into UK society.
If you look at the numbers of unsuccessful claimants who are actually deported, that's the abuse of the system.
I agree about safe legal routes to claiming asylum. It's my view that British asylum centres should be dotted around the world in various strategic places, processing claims there and then. Then successful claimants can travel to the UK legally. It eliminates the pull factor of coming to the UK to claim asylum, with all the dangers of boats etc. If there is a world conflict, a temporary processing centre could be established nearby. To me, that seems the most logical solution.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
I've scientifically analysed the wreckage, now, using my Prof. Pesto Scekrit Photo decoder. What really happened was this.
{A cold, dark night in urban Ukraine}
Russian 1 : Fuckin freezing my nuts off? Bored out of my skull. This fucking war is shit... Russian 2: Look at this awesome video on YouTube. We should do this.
A couple of minutes later...
Russian 1: Are you sure? Russian 2: Putting a firework up my arse and lighting it can't possibly be a bad idea. Even in a BMP full of ammunition and fuel. {strikes match}
Some little time later, when the fireball has reached the clouds
Ukrainian 1: WTF was that? Ukrainian 2: Dunno - I'm fucking freezing. Tea? Ukrainian 1: Best thing you've suggested this week.
I've just caught up with PMQs. As usual, the PM responds to every question by telling us all that the UK's response on everything to do with Ukraine has been world-leading. Just like he did on Covid, and everything else. On and on and he goes, not answering the question, just playing the big I am.
It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not (it isn't, as it happens). The "world-leading" rhetoric on every single sodding thing is just fucking embarrassing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would think and say exactly the same thing if it were a Labour PM engaging in this childish boosterism.
More embarrassing is those who defend this nonsense rhetoric.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
The discussion around asylum is dominated by the, umm, virtue signalers, who think that what the Ukranians want to to be resettled in the UK. Not because that’s what those fleeing Ukraine want, but because that’s the sort of thing they want the UK to do.
Most Ukranians want to be back there next week, when Putin’s thugs have buggered off back to Moscow.
There will be some who want visas for the UK, which they should be able to get in Warsaw. There will be some more who wish to claim asylum specifically in the UK, which again thet can do at the UK Embassy in Warsaw.
What the UK can do to make the biggest difference right now, is help the Polish and Hungarians with tents and rations.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Yes, and also the odd diplomatic genius, with a tremendous grasp of history, who told us that Putin would yield to Macron's peace-making because of the incredible cultural salience of the bearnaise sauce
I've just caught up with PMQs. As usual, the PM responds to every question by telling us all that the UK's response on everything to do with Ukraine has been world-leading. Just like he did on Covid, and everything else. On and on and he goes, not answering the question, just playing the big I am.
It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not (it isn't, as it happens). The "world-leading" rhetoric on every single sodding thing is just fucking embarrassing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would think and say exactly the same thing if it were a Labour PM engaging in this childish boosterism.
FWIW, I think Starmer has upped his game in PMQS in the last 6 months or so, i thought his performance before then was far too timid, something has changed, and it is all for the better to call the Clown out
I've just caught up with PMQs. As usual, the PM responds to every question by telling us all that the UK's response on everything to do with Ukraine has been world-leading. Just like he did on Covid, and everything else. On and on and he goes, not answering the question, just playing the big I am.
It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not (it isn't, as it happens). The "world-leading" rhetoric on every single sodding thing is just fucking embarrassing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would think and say exactly the same thing if it were a Labour PM engaging in this childish boosterism.
Welcome to PMQs - he does what virtually every PM I can remember does. As a true partisan I like his version better than Blair's or Wilson's - others would take the opposite view.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
And the linked story didn't say it was, either... " the ambush - said to have been carried out by troops armed with NLAW missile launchers. Artillery and drone strikes are also thought to have been deployed in the attack".
Someone googled it to make a point, and triggered you.
There's better reporting on selected bits of Twitter than in quite a lot of mainstream media.
It was like I was back at Netheravon...
And yes but it's like the advertising thing isn't it. 50% of it is great, the problem is...
Netheravon Wiltshire? I went to a lovely pub there once. Twice, actually. Actually, just looked it up. It was Upavon, not Netheravon. The Ship, it was called.
Used to be a trophy German 8,8cm gun at the roadside (PaK 43/41, the two-wheeled anti-tank rather than anti-aircraft version). Absolutely huge thing.
Happy memories of the Wiltshire pubs in the 1970s and 1980s on megalith hunts.
They’re in danger of overplaying their hand. Increased prevalence of wfh, and alternative forms of transport, means that Tube strikes no longer have quite the chaotic effect they once did. I think drivers on the Central and Victoria lines, in particular, are losing a lot of pay for not much return.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrkes in Kosovo
Maybe I'm overthinking this, but if Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999, quite a few events prior to NATO launching airstrikes in Kosovo might have turned out slightly differently.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
The discussion around asylum is dominated by the, umm, virtue signalers, who think that what the Ukranians want to to be resettled in the UK. Not because that’s what those fleeing Ukraine want, but because that’s the sort of thing they want the UK to do.
Most Ukranians want to be back there next week, when Putin’s thugs have buggered off back to Moscow.
There will be some who want visas for the UK, which they should be able to get in Warsaw. There will be some more who wish to claim asylum specifically in the UK, which again thet can do at the UK Embassy in Warsaw.
What the UK can do to make the biggest difference right now, is help the Polish and Hungarians with tents and rations.
Given that I agree with you and that the overwhelming majority will be wanting to go back when it is safe, I see no issue at all in taking some of the pressure off Poland and the other border states by promoting other Western European countries including the UK as somewhere the Ukrainians can stay until it is over. If the rates of migration continue then Poland and the other countries will be swamped with refugees no matter how many tents etc we send them. Better to take advantage of the offers from the European rail and air systems and disperse the Ukrainians to other Western European countries to take some pressure off the frontline states.
This is not like the 2015 situation where migrants were having to make hugely dangerous crossings of the Med or walk halfway to Europe to seek asylum. We have the capability in place to safely and with care disperse these people to places they can live right across the continent and it seems to me the right thing to do.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
Our asylum system is designed to make it impossible to actually claim asylum. Hence so many coming via an illegal route as there is no legal route.
One example highlighted on the radio yesterday was that as many fled without full identity documents our people were telling them to bugger off.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
You've never commented beyond what your personal expertise, even in an area of strength for you, might suggest? A rare individual indeed.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Hang on - we can’t both be Ukrainian commandos or I would know you! I’ve found the Russian mole!
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
You've never commented beyond what your personal expertise, even in an area of strength for you, might suggest? A rare individual indeed.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Hang on - we can’t both be Ukrainian commandos or I would know you! I’ve found the Russian mole!
Can we just stick with you're both going commando.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
Thinking alowed now, rather than proposing this, but,
Could we start a 'No Fly Zone', over the western part of Ukraine,
Officerly to protect refugees, but also to allow us to fly weapons more directly to Ukraine rather than having to derive all the way form Poland?
Would that trigger a response? at the moment most of the Russian planes seem to be in the east or centre. Putin might look silly if he tyres to shoot down UK planes but doesn't have the ability?
Then we could slowly/incrementally move the edge east?
For a no fly zone to have any significance you have to enforce it. That means you have to be willing and able to shoot down any aircraft that breach it. They then respond by bombing NATO missile defence systems and suddenly we are in a shooting war with Russia.
Again that only ends one way.
Is it inevitable that a conflict between NATO and Russia over Ukraine ends in nuclear war?
If NATO restricted its involvement to providing air support for Ukraine, with limited targeting of anti-aircraft and artillery assets near the Ukrainian border being the nearest anything got to Moscow, does that lead to nuclear conflict?
I'm not convinced. It's risky, particularly as we've spent so long saying we absolutely won't do anything like that, but if it's clearly linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine I think it's contained.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
You've never commented beyond what your personal expertise, even in an area of strength for you, might suggest? A rare individual indeed.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Hang on - we can’t both be Ukrainian commandos or I would know you! I’ve found the Russian mole!
Can we just stick with you're both going commando.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
Would you be able to present that point more visually?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
If Russia launches nukes then NATO responses to that would be a second strike, not a first strike.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
You've never commented beyond what your personal expertise, even in an area of strength for you, might suggest? A rare individual indeed.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Hang on - we can’t both be Ukrainian commandos or I would know you! I’ve found the Russian mole!
Can we just stick with you're both going commando.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You can sign me up to hating on the striking tube drivers when the tube reaches SE London.
When is Khan going to follow Trudeau's line on workers' protests that disrupt the economy of the capital and the lives of ordinary Londoners? Perhaps BJ should step in.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
The Lib Dems are especially skillful if I recall correctly, their bar charts are legendary for their accurate and honest portrayal of data.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
The other point to mention here is that I’m not entirely sure that Putin’s endgame was really to merely establish client states in Ukraine (and Belarus). I think what he would really, really like is for Ukraine and Belarus to be part of Russia, either like a Soviet confederation or even via wholesale incorporation as one or more federal subjects.
The latter would have even more advantageous as it would right what he sees as a historic “wrong” that was perpetrated when the Soviet constitution allowed for secession of constituent SSRs (thanks Conrade Lenin!) and which he at least partly blames for the dissolution of the USSR.
So, you're thinking some United Subserviant Suckers Republics, with Russia at the center givign the orders?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
As more images of Russians turning Ukraine into a pile of rubble flood in, opinion is really going to harden.
Thinking alowed now, rather than proposing this, but,
Could we start a 'No Fly Zone', over the western part of Ukraine,
Officerly to protect refugees, but also to allow us to fly weapons more directly to Ukraine rather than having to derive all the way form Poland?
Would that trigger a response? at the moment most of the Russian planes seem to be in the east or centre. Putin might look silly if he tyres to shoot down UK planes but doesn't have the ability?
Then we could slowly/incrementally move the edge east?
For a no fly zone to have any significance you have to enforce it. That means you have to be willing and able to shoot down any aircraft that breach it. They then respond by bombing NATO missile defence systems and suddenly we are in a shooting war with Russia.
Again that only ends one way.
Is it inevitable that a conflict between NATO and Russia over Ukraine ends in nuclear war?
If NATO restricted its involvement to providing air support for Ukraine, with limited targeting of anti-aircraft and artillery assets near the Ukrainian border being the nearest anything got to Moscow, does that lead to nuclear conflict?
I'm not convinced. It's risky, particularly as we've spent so long saying we absolutely won't do anything like that, but if it's clearly linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine I think it's contained.
In past times under different leaders I would have agreed with you. Under Putin I am not so sure.
I believe that the response of "the West" including our government has been pretty good so far. No-fly is lunacy as things stand. More targeting of assets of rich Russians would be good thing though. Make it clear they will lose it all and never experience the things they want from us unless they act soon against the deranged leader.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
I won't go on a rant such as Topping's from earlier, but 'driverless trains' keep on coming up with alarming frequency on here, and the reasons it's currently a non-starter are also trotted out.
It's be lovely to have driverless or crewless underground trains, but you're talking about billions in investment, many years, and oodles of disruption to get there. Even with all that it might not be possible.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
The Lib Dems are especially skillful if I recall correctly, their bar charts are legendary for their accurate and honest portrayal of data.
Indeed they are. But in the last two Westminster byelections they did themselves less than justice.... Perhaps there were (and are) more traditional decent Conservatives switching over to the Lib Dems than you might think.
Even young HY shows signs of Lib Dem tendencies at times, when he forgets to toe the latest Boris line.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
The location of that attack on the convoy is interesting. IANAE, but it does rather look to me as though it has been ambushed in a place where multiple Ukrainian troops would have been able to hide amongst buildings and blast them simultaneously.
That might explain why they are not attacking the 40mile convoy, which from the pics is mostly in open country. They might be waiting to be able to ambush them at specific points.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
'I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it'
Horrible conversation with the deputy mayor of Mariupol. Says residential areas heavily bombed, including his father's neighbourhood. "The situation is awful, we are near to a humanitarian catastrophe. We have been under more than 15 hours of continuous shelling without pause." “One district of the city is nearly totally destroyed ... We cannot count the number of victims there but we believe at least hundreds of people are dead. We cannot go in to retrieve the bodies. My father lives there, I cannot reach him, I don't know if he is alive or dead." “The Russian forces are several kilometres away on all sides. The Ukrainian army is brave and they will continue to defend the city, but Russia does not fight with their army, they just destroy districts.
“We believe in our Ukrainian army, but we are in a terrible situation.”
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
I won't go on a rant such as Topping's from earlier, but 'driverless trains' keep on coming up with alarming frequency on here, and the reasons it's currently a non-starter are also trotted out.
It's be lovely to have driverless or crewless underground trains, but you're talking about billions in investment, many years, and oodles of disruption to get there. Even with all that it might not be possible.
LOL. Tell us a bit about the tactical deployment and battlefield application of NLAWs.
Edit: and whatever was responsible for that bottom photo it wasn't NLAWs.
Why do you say that?
I am no expert but ALOW destroys tanks and other armed vehicles, those or Russian Armand vehicles and the Ukrainians have NLAWs supplied by UK.
Can you tell by the type of damage?
Jeez where to start but OK fair enough. First off, as @Malmesbury notes, all we can see is some charred vehicles. But let's say they are all military vehicles and were destroyed by an opposing action.
The location is a tree-lined street in what looks like a town or city. An NLAW is a stand off weapon and you need clear sight of the target, ie for there to be no, er, obstacles (like trees or houses or parked cars or postboxes or people going to the pub or...or...) in the way. It is not for built up areas because the ranges are too small. Could it have been a zillion NLAWs from all sides zapping the column? Could the NLAWs provided to the Ukrainian army have been deployed for application? Not wholly impossible but overwhelmingly unlikely; the profile of the vehicles in that column scream airborne attack and perhaps just perhaps artillery although you'd have to ask a gunner.
Minimum range for an NLAW is about 20m isn't it? And can be fired from a house. Surely ideal for insurgency? Javelins do have to be farther away because they actually fly a looped trajectory in order to hit the tank from above rather than just having a downward exploding charge. I assume that's why we sent the NLAWs, particularly as they are lighter and cheaper.
The trigger appears to be magnetic so you wouldn't want any metal objects in the way, but you could definitely hit a tank with one from an empty side street.
Still, there's going to be plenty of misinformation out there, and there's definitely a campaign to make it look like every urban street is a potential death trap for any sort of vehicle. It might have been a drone that they want to pretend they don't have.
You could certainly hit a tank from an empty side street but the profile of the destruction of those vehicles is not from an NLAW. You would have needed zillions of them.
And yes noted ( @Richard_Tyndall also) about their applicability to fight in more enclosed areas. That particular photo to me overwhelmingly says the damage was not caused by NLAWs. .
I remember when it was nothing but epidemiologists and international trade experts around here. A happier and more innocent age.
Meanwhile I yearn for @Malmesbury's daily charts for some wanton escapism. .
You won't be saying that when he starts putting up estimated numbers of NLAW sorties with projected Russian AV attrition rate.
I find people good with charts are never reticent to break out the skills.
The Lib Dems are especially skillful if I recall correctly, their bar charts are legendary for their accurate and honest portrayal of data.
Indeed they are. But in the last two Westminster byelections they did themselves less than justice.... Perhaps there were (and are) more traditional decent Conservatives switching over to the Lib Dems than you might think.
Even young HY shows signs of Lib Dem tendencies at times, when he forgets to toe the latest Boris line.
I did vote for the Tory candidate first and the LD candidate as my second preference in the PCC election last year, which used SV.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
The issue for Russia with using Nukes - even ignoring the massive ethical implications - is... what if they don't work?.
Russian army equipment, with the possible exception of artillery, simply doesn't seem that great. What if the feared nuclear weapons don't work as planned? What if they fizzle or fail to explode or detonate on launch? What does that do to Russia's nuclear deterrance?
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
The issue for Russia with using Nukes - even ignoring the massive ethical implications - is... what if they don't work?.
Russian army equipment, with the possible exception of artillery, simply doesn't seem that great. What if the feared nuclear weapons don't work as planned? What if they fizzle or fail to explode or detonate on launch? What does that do to Russia's nuclear deterrance?
I imagine those responsible for ensuring the quality of military tech in Russia will be shortly slipping off a balcony.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
I won't go on a rant such as Topping's from earlier, but 'driverless trains' keep on coming up with alarming frequency on here, and the reasons it's currently a non-starter are also trotted out.
It's be lovely to have driverless or crewless underground trains, but you're talking about billions in investment, many years, and oodles of disruption to get there. Even with all that it might not be possible.
The way some people talk, you'd think Charles Yerkes was a covert agent of the RMT.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Blackford making an excellent point and in the right tone
And now a second one. For all that Big Dog beats his chest and says "we are leading", the facts show the opposite. We must do more on freezing dodgy russian money being laundered and more to allow refugees to flee here.
On the latter, that it took 4 attempts for Patel to even open an offer to British resident Ukranians to allow them to have their siblings take refuge with them is a shameful misread of the public mood.
The facts show that the UK is leading the way, and the whole West is moving forward to the entire West's credit, in sanctions. Sanctions that started off mild are now globally amongst the toughest the world has ever seen.
I agree fully that we should be doing more regarding those fleeing war.
I don't think the facts really show the UK is leading the way - in some cases we were first to call for certain measures (sometimes including measures whose cost was rather higher for other countries than for the UK); in some we seem to have done more, such as providing military training; in others we've done much less, such as support for refugees. But regardless of the truth of it, I just don't understand the mindset that wants to insist that we are world-leading, or better, or have the best response - why are we engaged in competition with fellow countries at a time where what's needed is solidarity and co-operation? It doesn't achieve anything useful and is likely to undermine our aims by pointlessly annoying other countries.
I realise some of this is just Johnson's technique of concealing lies through vacuous boosterism, but what is wrong with e.g. "we believe we are doing the right thing by not sanctioning these individuals" rather than "we have a world-leading response"?
We have a world-leading response, except when if affects the City of London, Tory Party finances, or allowing forriners to into our country.
City of London is doing it's bit (given the rules it has to operate by) so except Tory Party finances, or allowing (none wealthy) forriners to into our country.
If you are rich enough you are exempt from being classed as forrin.
To be frank, I'm comfortable with that. We should aim that such people put down roots here - their children/grandchildren will be wealthy British citizens, and it will all contribute to employment for hundreds.
You’re not bothered then with the question of how they became very rich?
Most of our own aristocrats became rich by stealing cows, driving peasants off common land, or giving handjobs to Charles II.
I’m up for confiscating the aristocracy’s wealth.
I'm not. I think you get more flies with honey, and I believe in creating a system which gently but inexorably encourages the very wealthy to become givers and responsibility takers in society. Remember that the robber barons of centuries past did become the gentry, ending up employing all those people and taking active responsibility for the communities that they were part of.
So, if the great-great-great-great grandkids of the Russian oligarchs employ a few servants, it doesn’t matter how those oligarchs got rich and there’s no problem with giving them visas?
You're using hyperbole, but if the fortune was acquired legally in Russia, and the oligarch checks out legally, then yes. At present you seem to be saying the richer the individual the less likely a candidate they are to come here. I find that counter-productive.
You said you were comfortable with taking anyone rich. I introduced the concern about how they made their wealth, which may not have been legally. I am glad you have now acknowledged my point by adding “if the fortune was acquired legally”. That is the crucial question you left out previously.
OK, so I’ve got you to accept that point. The next question is: how many Russian oligarchs do we think acquired their fortune legally? Given Russia is a dictatorship and it’s pretty difficult to make money without cosying up to known war criminal Putin and his kleptocratic regime, I suggest a pretty high proportion of the Russian oligarchs acquired a pretty high proportion of their fortunes in some pretty dodgy ways.
I don’t have exact numbers and cases will vary from person to person, but there’s a real concern that the former UK visa scheme was rather lax about these questions.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You do, as most of our nuclear missiles are on submarines not the mainland though in reality if a Russian nuclear missile was heading for the UK it would already nearly be the same as it having hit the UK anyway
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
I don't really understand this debate about Ukrainian assylum seekers. We have an assylum system, which offers assylum to people fleeing persecution and war. If someone is fleeing the war in Ukraine, their assylum claim will be successful. I don't understand why we'd have a debate about fruit picking or other schemes.
You can't claim asylum unless you are in the UK. Ukrainians cannot legally enter the UK without a visa. This means you are asking Ukrainians to enter the UK illegally in order to claim asylum - more passengers for the small boats crossing the channel?
Don't most assylum claimants enter the country 'illegally'? If they entered legally, there would be little need to claim assylum.
It's rather disingenuous to say "we have an asylum system" and then acknowledge that it's only available to those prepared to try and enter illegally. The direction of policy is to try not to have an asylum system, and it's not really compatible with expressing solidarity with Ukrainian refugees unless separate provision is made for them.
I don't know whether that is the direction of policy, but I think it's patronising, unjust and mendacious in the extreme to suggest that those in Britain who believe the immigration system has been too lax, do not want us to provide asylum to those with a valid claim.
It has always been abuse of the asylum system by those migrating for economic reasons that people have had an issue with. They want politicians to get a grip on those abuses, not to stop people genuinely fleeing for their lives claiming asylum. Artificially conflating the two seems to be just a way of silencing legitimate concerns in a wave of moral indignation.
You can't abuse the asylum system to migrate for economic reasons. You claim asylum, and if you don't have a valid claim, it's rejected.
I have no idea who you believe is suggesting the patronising, unjust and mendacious point above, but I'm not. Keeping illegal immigration illegal is not the same thing as closing all legal routes to enter the country in order to claim asylum. If politicians wanted to deal with legitimate concerns about economic migration then the obvious step would be to establish safe legal routes for claiming asylum and to resource the system adequately so that asylum claims could be heard quickly. I assume at that point there would be no complaints about the roughly 70% of asylum seekers whose claim for asylum is upheld being integrated into UK society.
If you look at the numbers of unsuccessful claimants who are actually deported, that's the abuse of the system.
That's not an abuse of the system. It's a failure of the Home Office to operate the system effectively.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Worth noting the veto has been transferred once. Until 1971 it belonged to the ROC on Taiwan. Who used it to block the admission of Mongolia. (Integral Chinese territory). It was transferred to the PRC after ROC's expulsion from the UN. So it wouldn't be unprecedented to give the veto to Kyrgyzstan or some such...
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Let’s be honest, the way the UNSC operates is fundamentally predicated on a different geopolitical structure than the one we have now. Arguably even that we had in the Cold War. It was “the Allies have won, they’ll stay relatively united (or at least committed to keeping the peace), and they’ll sort out any messes between them.” It says that history’s winners in 1945 are the good guys and assumes they will remain so (more or less).
You can’t alter that structure by depriving a nation of its seat at the table without a significant shift in international relations that arguably would require another world war to ‘achieve’ (and given how WWIII would be fought, none of us would care about UN reform at that point). Or it requires the utter denuclearisation and dimiliterisation of one of the permanent members, which isn’t going to happen short some seismic event.
What is interesting is that the use of drones / UAVs isn't some secret new weapon.
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Which is surprising given their influence in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.
Crouch's football programme was the largest sports podcast at the BBC and the fourth most popular on BBC Sounds last year, especially popular with younger listeners.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
I won't go on a rant such as Topping's from earlier, but 'driverless trains' keep on coming up with alarming frequency on here, and the reasons it's currently a non-starter are also trotted out.
It's be lovely to have driverless or crewless underground trains, but you're talking about billions in investment, many years, and oodles of disruption to get there. Even with all that it might not be possible.
Basically - you can do driverless trains provided the system is completely self contained and ideally newly built as otherwise the costs don't work.
As an example the Glasgow Clockwork Orange is going driverless(ish) drivers and the cost of that for 6.5 miles is £300m+ and that is for a completely self contained line with no issues - and even that is running 3+ years late.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
Serbia did not have nuclear weapons, unlike Russia and had a far smaller military than Russia.
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrip in Kosovo
That's a different matter to whether NATO is prepared to act based on more than just defence or not.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
Only against countries which are not military superpowers and which do not have nuclear weapons, which excludes Russia
NATO is acting today.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
They would know where those nukes were going and know they were not aimed at NATO countries based on the type of delivery system. Indeed in the case of nuclear artillery or missiles from planes I am not even sure they would know they had fired nuclear weapons until they actually went off.
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
The issue for Russia with using Nukes - even ignoring the massive ethical implications - is... what if they don't work?.
Russian army equipment, with the possible exception of artillery, simply doesn't seem that great. What if the feared nuclear weapons don't work as planned? What if they fizzle or fail to explode or detonate on launch? What does that do to Russia's nuclear deterrance?
I imagine those responsible for ensuring the quality of military tech in Russia will be shortly slipping off a balcony.
Falling out of a window seems to be the thing in Moscow.
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
You're completely wrong that NATO will only act if one of its own members is attacked. When was Kosovo a member of NATO in 1999?
HY is arguing that 23 or even 26 EU states can join the Russian Federation before France needs to worry about using its nuclear capability. I am sure we might have something to say were nuclear warheads dropped on Dublin.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
We might have something to say but I doubt we would respond with nuclear weapons unless the UK itself was attacked (though of course the Republic deciding to rejoin the UK would ensure a nuclear response from us as well as swiftly removing the Irish Sea border problem).
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
Worth noting the veto has been transferred once. Until 1971 it belonged to the ROC on Taiwan. Who used it to block the admission of Mongolia. (Integral Chinese territory). It was transferred to the PRC after ROC's expulsion from the UN. So it wouldn't be unprecedented to give the veto to Kyrgyzstan or some such...
Yes but in reality once the PRC tested nuclear weapons in the 1960s it had to take ROC's permanent place on the UN Security Council
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
'I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it'
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You do, as most of our nuclear missiles are on submarines not the mainland though in reality if a Russian nuclear missile was heading for the UK it would already nearly be the same as it having hit the UK anyway
Huh? The problem with ballistic missiles is that when you have a lot of potential targets in close proximity - such as European countries - you don't know where its going with any accuracy until after the boost phase and the warhead bus separates.
So once you fire your missiles and the other side detects them, they have a very limited time to process the data consider options and then respond. So most nuclear war scenarios have "launch on warning" - you launch a full counter-force strike against enemy targets once you detect missiles in flight.
So no, you really don't have a chance. If anyone fires a ballistic missile its *over*. Which is the utter futility of our Trident capability as (a) if we fire it during the first exchange we're likely aiming at empty silos and we're about to get utterly destroyed already or even better (b) we retain SLBMs for a 2nd strike should one be required.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
Has anyone seen any detail on the matched fundraising recently announced?
The community sponsorship route is already well established for refugees from elsewhere. I am part of a community group sponsoring a family to come to our SE London neighbourhood. Government support to pay for accommodation is limited by the benefits cap and so finding affordable accommodation is the main obstacle. There is a huge groundswell of support for refugees out there, don't be fooled by what you might read in the tabloid press. We reached our fundraising goal in a couple of months with barely any effort.
Mr. Boy, come live in Leeds. Our tube workers have never, ever gone on strike.
Ha ha. Leeds must have the worst public transport of any major city in Britain, I feel your pain.
The public transport is fine if you live further out - plenty of electric trains serving Airedale and Wharfedale, some of them almost brand new and the rest refurbished.
But live in the Leeds suburbs and all you've got is buses.
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
There are various claims floating around about the "New Tube For London" trains - that they will have the capability to run driverless. Is this the usual weasel words stuff? Leaving out the "..if you completely re-engineer the signalling and the lines and the platforms...."??
You can automate stand-alone systems. Which the London Underground isn't.
What do you mean by stand-alone systems? The DLR is automated and seems to work fine with several branch lines etc. It doesn't seem that different to the Tube, except when it was built. I am not arguing, because I don't know enough about it, but what is the difference?
The DLR is a stand-alone system. Its trains run on its tracks and only its tracks. No other trains run on its tracks - stand-alone.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
Thanks.
No worries. Suggesting driverless LUL trains is practically easy and sensible compared ti the Failing suggesting that a "digital railway" solution would fix Manchester's Castlefield Corridor without the expense of building more tracks.
Yeah. Because fitting local, regional, and long-distance passenger plus heavy freight down the same metals thanks to a new computer is easy as each train is the same length, age, type, weight, performance, stopping pattern etc etc FFS...
Exactly, we have done what we could sending Ukraine military supplies before the Russian invasion and our doing all we can do.
President Biden has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine and imposing a no fly zone and we will not do anything beyond what the US is doing. Namely economic sanctions.
In terms of confronting Russia and China global realpolitik is that we follow the US lead within NATO, even more so now we have left the EU
Piers Morgan incredibly vociferous on social media about the need to implement a no fly zone, which in his view is risk free as the Russians are all talk.
There is a groundswell of opinion on social media pushing for a no fly zone. It is madness.
It is and also absurd from Morgan given how opposed he was to the 2003 Iraq War which toppled the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
The original goal of that aim was to stop Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction, Putin already has weapons of mass destruction
The problem with the Iraq war was it was unnecessary and prosecuted on the back of a lie.
There is every justification to go to war with Russia because they have invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation. It would be wholly legal. The only fly in the ointment is Putin is threatening nuclear Armageddon and the considered wisdom he would be quite content to act on his threat.
You have been banging on for days that NATO have no legitimate authority to challenge Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. You have gone further and suggested their is no moral or political imperative to act in the event of an invasion of Poland.
You are wrong about both the moral and political legitimately of NFYs, but you are probably correct that the implications of challenging Putin would be too horrific to comprehend.
There can be no UN resolution backing action against Russia afyer its invasion of Ukraine as there was when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 as Russia would veto it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
That therefore only leaves NATO as the international body able to act against it, as it did in Kosovo in 1999 for instance when Russia vetoed action against Serbia. However NATO is a defensive alliance that will only act militarily if one of its own members us attacked, that could include Poland, it excludes non NATO Ukraine.
In terms of nuclear weapons only France, the UK and USA within NATO actually have them and they would likely only use them if Russia launched nuclear missiles on their own cities in self defence or possibly if they themselves were under threat of Russian invasion
I hope you never join the Commons or become a minister if that’s your line. “Don’t worry about NATO Vlad, the nuclear umbrella has holes in”.
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
I doubt in reality unless a UK, French or US city was hit by a Russian nuclear missile that UK, French or US nuclear missiles would be launched against Moscow
You know the US and France have more than Subs right? You need to understand that means they have to act BEFORE the mushroom clouds.
In reality they wouldn't, they are called weapons of mutually assured destruction for a reason.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
What I’m referring to isn’t a first strike. It’s how nuclear war works with a triad - you see them coming and you fire back, or you don’t get a chance. It’s one of the issues. There’s a really useful two minute audio documentary called “99 Luft Balloons” which is all about it.
You do, as most of our nuclear missiles are on submarines not the mainland though in reality if a Russian nuclear missile was heading for the UK it would already nearly be the same as it having hit the UK anyway
Huh? The problem with ballistic missiles is that when you have a lot of potential targets in close proximity - such as European countries - you don't know where its going with any accuracy until after the boost phase and the warhead bus separates.
So once you fire your missiles and the other side detects them, they have a very limited time to process the data consider options and then respond. So most nuclear war scenarios have "launch on warning" - you launch a full counter-force strike against enemy targets once you detect missiles in flight.
So no, you really don't have a chance. If anyone fires a ballistic missile its *over*. Which is the utter futility of our Trident capability as (a) if we fire it during the first exchange we're likely aiming at empty silos and we're about to get utterly destroyed already or even better (b) we retain SLBMs for a 2nd strike should one be required.
If we fire Trident nuclear missiles we would be aiming at Moscow currently, not empty silos
Comments
I have no idea who you believe is suggesting the patronising, unjust and mendacious point above, but I'm not. Keeping illegal immigration illegal is not the same thing as closing all legal routes to enter the country in order to claim asylum. If politicians wanted to deal with legitimate concerns about economic migration then the obvious step would be to establish safe legal routes for claiming asylum and to resource the system adequately so that asylum claims could be heard quickly. I assume at that point there would be no complaints about the roughly 70% of asylum seekers whose claim for asylum is upheld being integrated into UK society.
So more unable to resist rather than unwilling.
If he hadn’t received the force of reaction to his Ukraine move then I do think he would have started making noises about the Baltics and playing brinkmanship. He may start getting designs on Moldova and Georgia. The remainder of Eastern Europe? Not convinced that was ever his intention.
.
Think about the coverage of the pandemic.
So, you want the same people to deliver a balanced, fact based report on the issues?
I doubt there are very few in Russia who want nuclear war or would be prepared to initiate one. I suspect if Putin gets anywhere near it, he will be removed.
There are, I hope, very few who want nuclear war in the West though you'd be surprised looking at social media. As long as we do not commit any forces to the Ukraine (including a No Fly Zone) a wider and far more serious conflict can be avoided.
There's an enormous tragedy for Ukraine and its people which has been and will continue to be played out - we have to ensure it doesn't become a far wider and greater tragedy.
People comment on things online, everyone does. Yes, people will overdo the amateur analysis, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people mock it on such a broad basis that no one should say anything about everything. Unless we're all Ukrainian or Russian commandos perhaps we should not comment on anything at all.
Again that only ends one way.
Turns out their Union is pro-Putin and Stop The War
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/01/enemy-underground-putin-apologists-brought-london-standstill/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
If Serbia had had nuclear weapons in 1999 then NATO would not have launched airstrkes in Kosovo
Actually, just looked it up. It was Upavon, not Netheravon. The Ship, it was called.
The latter would have even more advantageous as it would right what he sees as a historic “wrong” that was perpetrated when the Soviet constitution allowed for secession of constituent SSRs (thanks Conrade Lenin!) and which he at least partly blames for the dissolution of the USSR.
NATO has been willing to act beyond merely attacks within our own borders.
My view, FWIW, is that the line has to be drawn. Putin must know now that he'd lose a conventional war against a united NATO miserably - and just as importantly, so must his generals.
To put it another way, if he says "let me be world dictator, or I'll nuke the planet", will his underlings go along with that, if the West says no ?
I agree about safe legal routes to claiming asylum. It's my view that British asylum centres should be dotted around the world in various strategic places, processing claims there and then. Then successful claimants can travel to the UK legally. It eliminates the pull factor of coming to the UK to claim asylum, with all the dangers of boats etc. If there is a world conflict, a temporary processing centre could be established nearby. To me, that seems the most logical solution.
{A cold, dark night in urban Ukraine}
Russian 1 : Fuckin freezing my nuts off? Bored out of my skull. This fucking war is shit...
Russian 2: Look at this awesome video on YouTube. We should do this.
A couple of minutes later...
Russian 1: Are you sure?
Russian 2: Putting a firework up my arse and lighting it can't possibly be a bad idea. Even in a BMP full of ammunition and fuel. {strikes match}
Some little time later, when the fireball has reached the clouds
Ukrainian 1: WTF was that?
Ukrainian 2: Dunno - I'm fucking freezing. Tea?
Ukrainian 1: Best thing you've suggested this week.
As my face melted off in the irradiated firestorm that would inevitability follow I would be at peace because it would have been worth it.
Most Ukranians want to be back there next week, when Putin’s thugs have buggered off back to Moscow.
There will be some who want visas for the UK, which they should be able to get in Warsaw. There will be some more who wish to claim asylum specifically in the UK, which again thet can do at the UK Embassy in Warsaw.
What the UK can do to make the biggest difference right now, is help the Polish and Hungarians with tents and rations.
Happy memories of the Wiltshire pubs in the 1970s and 1980s on megalith hunts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60586914
You’re forgetting the dual key nukes and the fact that once he launches, we won’t initially be able to see what against so we’d retaliate. That’s why you have to avoid escalating to that point.
This is not like the 2015 situation where migrants were having to make hugely dangerous crossings of the Med or walk halfway to Europe to seek asylum. We have the capability in place to safely and with care disperse these people to places they can live right across the continent and it seems to me the right thing to do.
One example highlighted on the radio yesterday was that as many fled without full identity documents our people were telling them to bugger off.
If NATO restricted its involvement to providing air support for Ukraine, with limited targeting of anti-aircraft and artillery assets near the Ukrainian border being the nearest anything got to Moscow, does that lead to nuclear conflict?
I'm not convinced. It's risky, particularly as we've spent so long saying we absolutely won't do anything like that, but if it's clearly linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine I think it's contained.
You don't know what the future brings, if Russia were to launch nukes then NATO ought to respond instantly not wait until they know where those nukes have hit. Which is why Russia can't "just" nuke Ukraine.
If the US, France or UK launched a nuclear first strike then that is Armageddon for 90% of the Western world
was it any good?
So sadly it is perfectly possible that the Russians could use nukes against Ukrainian targets and be reasonably confident we would not make a knee jerk response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu_cfy33bY
It's be lovely to have driverless or crewless underground trains, but you're talking about billions in investment, many years, and oodles of disruption to get there. Even with all that it might not be possible.
Even young HY shows signs of Lib Dem tendencies at times, when he forgets to toe the latest Boris line.
I also have issues with your Iraq comment earlier. A Security Council Resolution on Iraq backed by faulty evidence is a faulty Resolution. Also the Permanent Member veto is now surely no longer fit for purpose under the circumstances.
That might explain why they are not attacking the 40mile convoy, which from the pics is mostly in open country. They might be waiting to be able to ambush them at specific points.
Words not to live by on PB.
Horrible conversation with the deputy mayor of Mariupol. Says residential areas heavily bombed, including his father's neighbourhood. "The situation is awful, we are near to a humanitarian catastrophe. We have been under more than 15 hours of continuous shelling without pause." “One district of the city is nearly totally destroyed ... We cannot count the number of victims there but we believe at least hundreds of people are dead. We cannot go in to retrieve the bodies. My father lives there, I cannot reach him, I don't know if he is alive or dead." “The Russian forces are several kilometres away on all sides. The Ukrainian army is brave and they will continue to defend the city, but Russia does not fight with their army, they just destroy districts.
“We believe in our Ukrainian army, but we are in a terrible situation.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIiH2jw6nE
Russian army equipment, with the possible exception of artillery, simply doesn't seem that great. What if the feared nuclear weapons don't work as planned? What if they fizzle or fail to explode or detonate on launch? What does that do to Russia's nuclear deterrance?
The whole purpose of the UN was to avoid a World War by ensuring the key powers had a veto on UN action and UN endorsed military action in particular, thus ensuring it was a body that aimed to bring global unity.
In reality that makes UN action difficult to achieve but removing Russia's veto rather removes the point of the UN too.
OK, so I’ve got you to accept that point. The next question is: how many Russian oligarchs do we think acquired their fortune legally? Given Russia is a dictatorship and it’s pretty difficult to make money without cosying up to known war criminal Putin and his kleptocratic regime, I suggest a pretty high proportion of the Russian oligarchs acquired a pretty high proportion of their fortunes in some pretty dodgy ways.
I don’t have exact numbers and cases will vary from person to person, but there’s a real concern that the former UK visa scheme was rather lax about these questions.
London Underground is not a stand-alone system. The sub-surface lines operate over and interact with National Rail tracks and vice-versa. Even the tube lines plug into NR metals - Bakerloo north of Queens Park being one example. And then plug into each other with tube and sub-surface trains running on the same physical tracks operating different lines.
Whats worse, because the network was built by different companies to different standards at different times, there are existing incompatibilities between very similar-looking trains on very similar-looking routes (e.g. Central and Northern), made all the more fun by the various hidden connections between lines (e.g. the Kings Cross loop connecting Euston Northern Line and Kings Cross Piccadilly lines).
So the simple reality is that endless anti-union posts demanding Automated Trains. Now. Is literally messing about because its simply not possible to implement driverless operation without £vast spent on separating the infrastructure before you spent £vast on a giant computer system and then a new fleet of trains on all lines.
Final point. This giant computer to drive your Automanted Trains. Now. They don't like complex. One of the reasons why Crossrail is so late and so over budget is that the system combines multiple signalling systems on different parts of the network. The interface between them so that the computer is able to hand a train over safely from system to system has to be robust and fail-safe or there is a big bang and deaths...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-support-for-ukrainians-fleeing-russia-invasion
Sponsors are to provide housing.
Has anyone seen any detail on the matched fundraising recently announced?
The US and Israelis have had them for ages, and now the Chinese and Turkish build them pretty cheaply and happy to sell them widely, and the Turks used on regular occasions in Syria.
It doesn't seem the Russians have them or have thought much about what would happen if the opposition were to get their hands on them.
Until 1971 it belonged to the ROC on Taiwan. Who used it to block the admission of Mongolia. (Integral Chinese territory).
It was transferred to the PRC after ROC's expulsion from the UN.
So it wouldn't be unprecedented to give the veto to Kyrgyzstan or some such...
You can’t alter that structure by depriving a nation of its seat at the table without a significant shift in international relations that arguably would require another world war to ‘achieve’ (and given how WWIII would be fought, none of us would care about UN reform at that point). Or it requires the utter denuclearisation and dimiliterisation of one of the permanent members, which isn’t going to happen short some seismic event.
https://twitter.com/acast/status/1498588892672499713?s=20&t=DgFgOGnqFATUITee9IIkvw
Crouch's football programme was the largest sports podcast at the BBC and the fourth most popular on BBC Sounds last year, especially popular with younger listeners.
As an example the Glasgow Clockwork Orange is going driverless(ish) drivers and the cost of that for 6.5 miles is £300m+ and that is for a completely self contained line with no issues - and even that is running 3+ years late.
So once you fire your missiles and the other side detects them, they have a very limited time to process the data consider options and then respond. So most nuclear war scenarios have "launch on warning" - you launch a full counter-force strike against enemy targets once you detect missiles in flight.
So no, you really don't have a chance. If anyone fires a ballistic missile its *over*. Which is the utter futility of our Trident capability as (a) if we fire it during the first exchange we're likely aiming at empty silos and we're about to get utterly destroyed already or even better (b) we retain SLBMs for a 2nd strike should one be required.
But live in the Leeds suburbs and all you've got is buses.
Yeah. Because fitting local, regional, and long-distance passenger plus heavy freight down the same metals thanks to a new computer is easy as each train is the same length, age, type, weight, performance, stopping pattern etc etc FFS...