The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
The EU have done it. We haven't. It's typical Boris Johnson who, afterall, the same year that Putin shot down a commercial airliner killing 283 innocent civilians including 80 children, played tennis with a Putin oligarch's wife in order to trouser £160,000.
Why not examine the underlying question and decide on the merits?
Because the underlying question is "EU official is moaning about the UK". Well, durr. Of course they are. If we were doing the exact opposite, they would still be moaning, the Guardian would still be reporting it uncritically and Scotty would still be reposting it here...
Shit, I never see your username without thinking "I wonder what for" and "I hope he's not holding his breath." The underlying question is not what the EU says, it is whether what the EU has to say is true. Which I am sure you will agree it must be when you see it in a newspaper of record:
DEATH PROBE Russian tycoon Mikhail Watford found hanged in one of Britain’s most prestigious estates days after Ukraine invasion ... Police are probing the death with the “utmost seriousness” amid fears he could have been on a hit list. Moscow has been linked to a number of exile deaths in Britain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17825236/mikhail-watford-russian-invasion-ukraine/
Didn't Boris Berezovsky die mysteriously on the same estate?
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
We're doing the right thing and just what Maggie would have done.
Maggie didn't directly fight the USSR but together with Ronald she helped win and end the Cold War.
Boris and Joe are doing the same thing thirty-odd years later. Zelenskyy's people are doing the direct fighting, but we're giving them the aid and support they need (and the pressure on Russia needed) so that they can win.
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
DEATH PROBE Russian tycoon Mikhail Watford found hanged in one of Britain’s most prestigious estates days after Ukraine invasion ... Police are probing the death with the “utmost seriousness” amid fears he could have been on a hit list. Moscow has been linked to a number of exile deaths in Britain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17825236/mikhail-watford-russian-invasion-ukraine/
Didn't Boris Berezovsky die mysteriously on the same estate?
Must be a pretty dodgy area.
Probably still a lower death rate than Albert Square.
Thought. If we can get Zelenskyy and all his government out to US, they can carry on being legitimate Ukraine government, carry on negotiating EU membership, NATO membership, acting like a government in waiting making fight back even more likely?
DONT LET THEM DIE
Be like person who grabbed De Gaul and man handled him onto plane
PLEASE
I disagree, Zelenskyy seams very good at knowing what to do, let him do what he thinks is best, if that's to stay in Kyiv then that's where he should stay. it will boost the moral of the city and incress its chances of staying out of Russian hands.
Incidentally was De Gaule man handled on to a plane? I don't recall that, but maybe?
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
" Putin is said to have told Mr Macron in a 90-minute call that he had no plans to stop the invasion, will continue until he takes the whole of Ukraine, and may then add extra security demands on top of the ones he had already sent to the US and NATO. The attack will continue 'without compromises' until 'the end', Putin said."
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
Just trying to confuse us all.
Yes, seems far more likely than second guessing motivations from loyalists.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
And Zelensky is in the right. To rational people Russia has already lost and has an unwinnable situation on its hands. To Putin and the hardliners types, they will not mentally get there until the situation is rapidly turning against them at an accelerating rate. At that point, every week that goes past will reduce Russian leverage, so we should hold the line until full Ukrainian territory and sovereignty is accepted. That means the right to determine their own foreign policy.
If Scotland went Indy, would you (I am assuming you are English, apologies if not) accept them going into a close military alliance with Russia, and potentially having Russian bases on Scottish soil? I doubt it. In an imperfect world, realpolitik means that nations aren't entirely free. That of course includes Britain, despite Brexit.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
DEATH PROBE Russian tycoon Mikhail Watford found hanged in one of Britain’s most prestigious estates days after Ukraine invasion ... Police are probing the death with the “utmost seriousness” amid fears he could have been on a hit list. Moscow has been linked to a number of exile deaths in Britain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17825236/mikhail-watford-russian-invasion-ukraine/
Golly
Putin is bloody good at (some aspects of) what he does
On the 90 minute phone call, google dexamethasone mania and then mania pressure of speech. I seriously think that is what's happening
Why aren’t they complaining about the US which is working to the same timetable as the U.K.?
One of the reasons it will take longer here and in the US is because the government needs to respect the rule of law. In the EU they can lean on the ECJ to ignore whole swathes of treaty law but there's simply no chance that the supreme court here would do it and the UK government could end up in a pretty awful situation of having to unwind sanctions and pay billions in damages to people we've labelled a risk to society.
One of the great things about the UK is that everyone is protected by the law from government overreach, sometimes it makes life difficult but the alternative where the executive is able to influence judicial outcomes as happens in Europe fairly often is pretty awful.
It’s clear that EU is seen as - not NATO, but the next best thing.
Good news for EU fans.
An opportunity - if you squint - for the UK to help set up a coherent economic architecture for countries outside or perhaps not yet in the EU. EFTA 2.0 sort of thing.
Serbia and Montenegro are next in line to formally join the EU, both by 2025.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Seeking to have your own sovereignty isn't a maximalist position, its a default position.
"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:
- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify" - Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia - Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)
I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.
Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).
The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.
I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.
"deNazify" - hmmm. So the guys who are into "blood and soil nationalism" and have actual Nazi tattoos want what, exactly?
"demilitarise" - this is simpler. They want Ukraine to get rid of all the weapons with which they have been making Russia look bad.
1. deNazify ... smells like Russian bullshit for consumption by the population at home.
2. de-militarize ... if this means Ukraine not joining NATO, but territorial integrity is guaranteed by everyone, that is fine by me. Russia accepts if Ukraine is invaded, the West will then intervene.
3. Well, of course, I repeatedly argued for a plebiscite, & Ukraine did have plenty of time to organise one. And I was repeatedly told on pb.com it was "too difficult" to organise a plebiscite, so we are now facing problems many orders of magnitude more difficult. Sadly, In times of war, the boundary is drawn by guns, not polls.
Russia gets Luhansk/Donetsk ... and any Russian living in the rest of the Ukraine who feels that the really have to live under the Russian flag is relocated there.
No, not "too difficult" - a travesty of democracy as great as the "plebiscites" in the Baltics in the 1940s or Crimea in 2014.
A "plebiscite" in stolen territory held at gunpoint is worthless.
This one won't fly, as territorial integrity was recognised (though not 'guaranteed') by all UN Permanent SC Members in 1994, and Putin just said "things have changed & that Treaty no longer applies".
" Putin is said to have told Mr Macron in a 90-minute call that he had no plans to stop the invasion, will continue until he takes the whole of Ukraine, and may then add extra security demands on top of the ones he had already sent to the US and NATO. The attack will continue 'without compromises' until 'the end', Putin said."
Very odd, becasuse this is completely the opposite direction of travel from Lavrov, both apparently in rhetoric and demands. Either it's the world's highest-stakes game of good-cop-bad-cop, as Luckyguy mentions, or we could be looking at some sort of regime split.
Given the other signs of public dissent here and there, I think it's most likely the latter.
Just trying to confuse us all.
Yes, seems far more likely than second guessing the motivation of regime loyalists.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position.
We also in the West might find a partition settlement less satisfactory than we might have a week ago, because we lack a guarantee that - essentially - Putin is not going to go even more nuts and invade the Baltics etc.
Therefore, if militarily neutral Ukraine is part of the equation, we also need some kind of military forebearance commmitment from Russia.
I hope we (the US, or perhaps France) are activating our back channels with China. I think this whole shitshow is being looked on with horror by Beijing and they are in a position to pressure Russia toward a deal.
Given that Ukraine's position is "we want our country intact" and Putin's is "I want to steal it", drawing an equivalence between the two is appalling bothsidesism.
Yes indeed. Being hard nosed and ruthless about it, sure, Zelensky is unlikely to be able to keep the borders of his country intact - that the world did nothing to stop the previous breaking up of it 8 years ago makes that unlikely for a start - but they are not equivalent demands being made, and so neither is keeping to that position equally stubborn from both, since one, even if considered unreaslistic, is at least rational and reasonable (compared to Ukraine does not exist/turn back time/don't build nukes) as a goal.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Because you regard Putin and Zelensky as if they are just as bad as each other?
If the Afghans can maintain a resistance for 20 years despite little external support against the full weight of the US, then Ukrainians can maintain a resistance against a sanctioned Russia with the full resources of the West behind them.
Or defending the West to the last Ukrainian, as its otherwise known
Because everyone knows Afghanistan doesn't have a population these days.
This isn't Russia, your logic jumps won't work here.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
Why aren’t they complaining about the US which is working to the same timetable as the U.K.?
One of the reasons it will take longer here and in the US is because the government needs to respect the rule of law. In the EU they can lean on the ECJ to ignore whole swathes of treaty law but there's simply no chance that the supreme court here would do it and the UK government could end up in a pretty awful situation of having to unwind sanctions and pay billions in damages to people we've labelled a risk to society.
One of the great things about the UK is that everyone is protected by the law from government overreach, sometimes it makes life difficult but the alternative where the executive is able to influence judicial outcomes as happens in Europe fairly often is pretty awful.
That is simply not true. With (emergency) primary legislation in this country you can do whatever the hell you like. A point made by me at about 1230 on the last thread and confirmed by Lord Sumption, obv a lurker here, on the radio an hour later. Where there's a will there's a way, and where there's millions in dodgy Russian funding there is very little will.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Because you regard Putin and Zelensky as if they are just as bad as each other?
I don’t, though. What a stupid accusation to make.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
Have I hijacked your account? You were putting me back in my box when I was quoting Tobias Elwood just a fortnight ago.
It's interesting watching people head towards the General Power position. He was the one that Curtis Le May thought was a little bit on the nuke happy side.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
If you explain what you mean by frenzied moral masturbation, by all means.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Because you regard Putin and Zelensky as if they are just as bad as each other?
I don’t, though. What a stupid accusation to make.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes because that is what we have agreed. IF Putin attacks a NATO country then we have no choice but to get involved and fight. But that will probably be the end of all of us one way or another. We do have a choice about Ukraine because we have no commitment to support them.
Both cases end up with us in a nuclear war with Russia. In the case of Ukraine we can choose not to take that step. And that is absolutely what we are right to do.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
He may have no choice even if the war goes very well. But suggestions of what he should give up are often pretty flippant as to how easy it would be for him to sell to his people. They love him now, but that doesn't mean bowing to demands would be simple.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I haven't read the thread, but I 100% agree that Russia has had such a terrible experience so far, that Putin has no option but to win the war.
Simply, who is going to be frightened of Russia's military might given how the Ukrainians have defended themselves. (Plus, of course, it's not great for Russia's arms export industry. Who wants to buy their tanks or helicopters, when they can be so easily destroyed by cheap Western weapons?)
The problem with this - of course - is that it creates Putin's Afghanistan. A long lived, low level insurgency which ties down troops, costs a fortune, and happens in the context of severe economic sanctions.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Because you regard Putin and Zelensky as if they are just as bad as each other?
I don’t, though. What a stupid accusation to make.
Then why even write the aforementioned sentence?
Because I mistakenly assumed PB wasn’t infested with virtue signalling lackwits.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
But the issue is that anything Putin could conceivably frame as a "win" has to be larger than the perceived costs. Given the car crash about to happen to the Russian economy and the resistance of Ukrainians, that has to be major annexations and limits on the sovereignty of rump Ukraine. That is not going to be tolerable to the Ukrainians. So we are in the world of Putin's position being in question, at which point it becomes in Ukraine's interest to press for full sovereignty and territory.
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
Sorry, it wasn't me that told the electorate that climate change was by far the greatest threat humanity faced.
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
It is at best linguistically ambiguous, it seems a bit precious to be complaining people took that meaning from it.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
Something has shifted tonight in Moscow. If feels all at once like panic & blissful ignorance. Panic because I’m getting messages talking about the rush to leave, FSB questioning people on borders, forcing them to stay. Young men getting called up to the front line and escaping
Ignorance - because walking the streets of this city tonight, you would never know it may be about to close itself off from the rest of the world. People in restaurants and cafes. Life continuing. Surreal.
I saw a screenshot of a long message sent to a Whatsapp group from someone taking part in the operation from the Russian side who was saying that the level of "fanaticism" among the local popualtion exceeds their worst fears - "even in Novorossiya" - and that it reminds him of the Chechen war.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
If Putin isn't removed in the short term and (God forbid) things don't escalate outside of Ukraine to bring NATO into direct conflict then I think Russia will descend into something close to civil war.
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
I said maximalist, you say extreme.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I haven't read the thread, but I 100% agree that Russia has had such a terrible experience so far, that Putin has no option but to win the war.
Simply, who is going to be frightened of Russia's military might given how the Ukrainians have defended themselves. (Plus, of course, it's not great for Russia's arms export industry. Who wants to buy their tanks or helicopters, when they can be so easily destroyed by cheap Western weapons?)
The problem with this - of course - is that it creates Putin's Afghanistan. A long lived, low level insurgency which ties down troops, costs a fortune, and happens in the context of severe economic sanctions.
Read the entire thread. 5 minutes that will really educate you. It did me, anyway
He makes an uncomfortable argument that cannot be avoided
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
I said maximalist, you say extreme.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
Zelensky would make a tactical mistake if he publicly offered to compromise. In talks or via covert channels he may decide he has to in order to avoid extreme levels of civilian casualties.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
Would you have argued for Britain to make peace in 1940 rather than have London be bombed? Long run, the best thing for the world is a Russia forced to withdraw and Putin removed from power.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would continue to mention Brexit in a thread about Ukraine / sanctions.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster.
Exactly this. I've noticed how the people moaning about the lack of sanctions are the same people who have (sometimes accurately) criticised the government for inadequate devotion to the rule of law over the last couple of years. As ever, their visceral hatred for the government is causing them to try to have it both ways.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
Something to bear in mind. Many Ukrainians are being forced to flee their country due to a war not of their choosing. They are of course wanting to be able to go back home as soon as possible. There are also many Russians now fleeing Russia. They have no desire to go home. The Ukrainians have hope for their country's future. The Russians have a sense of despair for theirs.
I saw a screenshot of a long message sent to a Whatsapp group from someone taking part in the operation from the Russian side who was saying that the level of "fanaticism" among the local popualtion exceeds their worst fears - "even in Novorossiya" - and that it reminds him of the Chechen war.
Irony being, of course, that the Chechens are fighting ALONGSIDE the Russians this time.
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
The problem with that theory is that surrender wouldn't stop Putin.
At this point he might bomb the cities to rubble anyway
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would continue to mention Brexit in a thread about Ukraine / sanctions.
Anyone reading Scott's posts would understand why the reference was made.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
Sorry, it wasn't me that told the electorate that climate change was by far the greatest threat humanity faced.
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
Why? That makes no more sense than saying, if I think CVD or some form of cancer are the greatest threats I face, I am not going to wear a seatbelt or take precautions against sunburn. Why wouldn't I?
The default path now is an ongoing, bloody, grinding occupation of Ukraine, alongside the continued economic isolation of Russia.
I think we in the West can keep that up indefinitely. It’s less clear:
(1) how long Russia can keep up funding the war or manage the risk of regime collapse. (2) how long the Ukrainians can maintain their resistance.
So long as (1) and (2) remain uncertain, the war continues.
@YBarddCwsc’s proposed settlement makes sense, and is similar to what I’ve also said, but Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position....
That is to suggest an equivalence which doesn't exist. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine's survival as an independent nation. I wouldn't described that as maximalist.
Not quite. Zelensky is committed to Ukraine’s survival as an independent nation, at pre-2014 borders, and as a member of both NATO and the EU.
Perhaps maximalist is the wrong word, I am simply saying that at least for now Zelensky has not signalled any potential compromise position.
His country has been invaded by a hostile power. Why should he compromise?
I haven’t said he should, despite the frenzied moral masturbation of PB’s usual suspects.
Wot @Gardenwalker said: "Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Yep. Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
There is an inherent suggestion maximalist positions are bad/unreasonable. It'd be like describing them of having both having extreme positions. That might technically be true, but wouldn't make them equally extreme, yet describing them together like that implies they are the same even if that is not intended.
I said maximalist, you say extreme.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
Zelensky would make a tactical mistake if he publicly offered to compromise. In talks or via covert channels he may decide he has to in order to avoid extreme levels of civilian casualties.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
Would you have argued for Britain to make peace in 1940 rather than have London be bombed? Long run, the best thing for the world is a Russia forced to withdraw and Putin removed from power.
@Gardenwalker would have described Churchill's stand in July 1940 as "maximalist", I suppose.
Comments
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
The EU have done it. We haven't. It's typical Boris Johnson who, afterall, the same year that Putin shot down a commercial airliner killing 283 innocent civilians including 80 children, played tennis with a Putin oligarch's wife in order to trouser £160,000.
Dirty stinking Putin tories.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10572679/Fury-Roman-Abramovich-oligarchs-offload-billions-assets-without-facing-sanctions.html
Must be a pretty dodgy area.
Maggie didn't directly fight the USSR but together with Ronald she helped win and end the Cold War.
Boris and Joe are doing the same thing thirty-odd years later. Zelenskyy's people are doing the direct fighting, but we're giving them the aid and support they need (and the pressure on Russia needed) so that they can win.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
Zemmour has leap-frogged Jadot (so much for him struggling to make the ballot!) and Le Pen has passed Dupont-Aignan and Arthaud (ditto!)
Poutou got 97 in the last 48 hours and needs 61 more by tomorrow. Below that, I think you can rule out reaching the threshold.
Incidentally was De Gaule man handled on to a plane? I don't recall that, but maybe?
"Putin and Zelensky are both still committed to their own maximalist position...."
Don't forget Greta.
She started this war, not Putin.
Please explain to me how that sentence either connotes approval/disapproval, let alone recommends one course of action or another.
Putin is bloody good at (some aspects of) what he does
On the 90 minute phone call, google dexamethasone mania and then mania pressure of speech. I seriously think that is what's happening
One of the great things about the UK is that everyone is protected by the law from government overreach, sometimes it makes life difficult but the alternative where the executive is able to influence judicial outcomes as happens in Europe fairly often is pretty awful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Serbia_to_the_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Montenegro_to_the_European_Union
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/03/803_324895.html
Was there a market anywhere on this race ?
Sky's @DominicWaghorn asks the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson if Russia is "lying" about targeting Ukrainian civilians.
Live updates: http://trib.al/QTC8as2
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1499424284317470729
What's happening in the Ukraine is beyond belief and our lily-livered response is letting Putin get away with it.
This will see the tories sink further in the polls once the initial shock phase has passed.
Boris Johnson is not fit to be a lavatory attendant, let alone the leader of an increasingly marginalised country.
He’s not immune to a bit of Guido at all.
Perhaps we should switch back on the mothballed coal plants to reduce gas consumption?
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
It seems clear he wants a cold war even thouh it means hardship, but he has a limited pool of dedicated allies on his side, so it is an insane idea.
This isn't Russia, your logic jumps won't work here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60605462
What a stupid accusation to make.
BREAKING: Knighthood Conferred on Gavin Williamson https://order-order.com/2022/03/03/breaking-knighthood-conferred-on-gavin-williamson…
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1499425240383995911
Both cases end up with us in a nuclear war with Russia. In the case of Ukraine we can choose not to take that step. And that is absolutely what we are right to do.
Jesus.
Simply, who is going to be frightened of Russia's military might given how the Ukrainians have defended themselves. (Plus, of course, it's not great for Russia's arms export industry. Who wants to buy their tanks or helicopters, when they can be so easily destroyed by cheap Western weapons?)
The problem with this - of course - is that it creates Putin's Afghanistan. A long lived, low level insurgency which ties down troops, costs a fortune, and happens in the context of severe economic sanctions.
Two yachts. That'll show Putin...
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
Because that is our treaty obligations.
We defend NATO countries, with our troops, our aircraft, and even - if necessary - our nuclear weapons.
But it is different for the Ukraine, because we don't have a treaty obligation.
Unless you're saying the UK has a duty to defend countries, irrespective of whether they have a mutual defence obligation.
It is at best linguistically ambiguous, it seems a bit precious to be complaining people took that meaning from it.
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
Ignorance - because walking the streets of this city tonight, you would never know it may be about to close itself off from the rest of the world. People in restaurants and cafes. Life continuing. Surreal.
https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1499427440497725442
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
I don’t regard Zelensky’s position as “extreme”, but simply - at this juncture - uncompromising. And in the original post I was not making any judgment about that.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
He makes an uncomfortable argument that cannot be avoided
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
At this point he might bomb the cities to rubble anyway
Nice democratic country but NOT a NATO member mate so, its subjugation, death and destruction, I'm afraid.