How long before Ukraine doesn’t dominate the front pages? – politicalbetting.com
How long before Ukraine doesn’t dominate the front pages? – politicalbetting.com
0
This discussion has been closed.
How long before Ukraine doesn’t dominate the front pages? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
But it's clearly not a strategy doing any good. Several places which are pro-EU (which whether we are in the EU or not is a good thing) are having their futures decided by Russia who can just bite off chunks, eventually back off or be beaten off from more, then sit their content that pseudo-neutrality can be enforced at least by virtue of denying them entry into alliances and clubs they may want to join.
Since NATO is a military alliance that's probably still off the table, but perhaps the EU can advance the applications of such nations and accept them regardless after all. If they can be helped to achieve any requirements it's the only thing to do - Russia would hit the roof, but the risk is clearly very high even without letting these places join.
He's bring down the average age pretty considerably - Prince Charles (who I'm sure as an Order of Merit on merit) is one of the younger ones.
Wow. The Telegraph has us about to get properly involved at last.
So this is how we get into the direct war with Russia, on the argument we are at grave threat from the nuclear power stations in out of control war zone
That sounds remarkably plausible, the Telegraph may have called this one ahead of the others.
If you want inside news on Conservative Party and Military matters, surely that’s preserve of the Telegraph.
If I was Putin, I’d be very worried after that front page that Pentagon, Downing Street and NATO are quietly this minute behind the scenes putting in place a shocking little plot twist for him?
It feels like they are, from the rhetoric so noticeably changing?
Now, if they had not forced the UK out by giving Cameron such a shitty renegotiation package, they would have had the basis for a much more effective fighting force. But....
Of course this would indirectly benefit Ukraine by keeping the lights on, so who knows how Mad Vlad would react.
At the rate things are going I fear most of Europe is going to be radioactive glass by this time next week.
Nobody wins if everybody is dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x9HyTGRJTc
"The US currently buys more than 500 million barrels of Russian crude per day, about 10% of its overall oil imports."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60532634
2021: world oil production averaged 96.5m a day.....
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
Charles Moore
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/04/putin-will-win-win-west-continues-show-afraid/
Well here is NIMBYism writ large. We will step in not to help Ukraine or Ukrainian people but just in order to stop nuclear fallout affecting us. Nothing about people being pulverised by a bully. Nothing about innocent lives already being lost. All about saving our own skin from radiation.
It stinks.
We should stand up to this bully Putin no matter what the consequences. Call him out. If that means we declare war on Putin, so be it.
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
She stood up to the Argentinian Junta even when it was 8000 miles away.
She would have stood up to Putin.
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost?
(2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. Russia's weapons have shown themselves no match for the West's. Who would buy a Russian fighter plane or helicopter, given they are being destroyed by citizens wielding the very lowest tech stuff from Raytheon?
Russia is supposed to have some of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world. Their S400 missile system is $300m a pop, and they've blanketed their parts of Ukraine with it. It is supposed to be able to destroy fighters, bombers, drones and even stealthy aircraft.
A week in, they're out of missiles, and the Ukrainian airforce is intact, and its drones still fly. The S400, used for the first time in anger in Ukraine, is one of the most expensive duds in history. It's meant to take out enemy aircraft 150 miles away... yet I don't think it's managed a single kill.
It gets worse. Russia's armor and APCs have been hammered. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed.
Only the Russian artillery has proven any worth. And that's technology that is eighty years old, and which would be in terrible trouble if the Ukrainians had more than a few dozen Turkish drones.
Putin can't act with inpunity because the best parts of his armed forces have already been destroyed. Yes, he'll probably manage to hold Ukraine up to the Dnieper. But Lviv looks a lot safer than it did. Simply, Russian supply chains are already a disaster, and moving 300 miles West through hostile country with few roads (while garrisoning half a dozen rebellious cities) is likely to be far too much for the Russian army.
Ukraine (and the Ukrainian people) have paid a terrible price.
But the people of Poland will be breathing a lot easier, having seen the utter failures of the Russian army in the Ukraine.
There may have been days when Russia was 10% of US oil imports, but it will not have been a regular thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naPuZgI53Co
The standfirst (Prime Minister warns ‘radioactive cloud’ threatens Europe as US declares Nato ready for conflict after Russian attack on power plant) is a misrepresentation.
Boris Johnson was talking about a potential threat, not an existing threat from a cloud. And yes it can be interpreted both ways, but the could have written it so that the inaccurate 'cloud has already been created' interpretation was not possible. But, being shitty media, they chose not to do so.
BJ was also not talking about us 'going in'; he was talking about sending in nuclear experts from the UN. Which seems eminently reasonable.
Suggest referring Telegraph front pages to the wipe-your-bottom-after-using-the-toilet application. Our grandparents in the 1950s knew the value of over-speculative newspapers, and what to do with them.
As far as I can see (and I have not looked exhaustively, so I may be wrong), there is no link to the original speech or interview - which is a telltale for useless media.
Full article here, turn off Javascript to read it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/04/boris-johnson-west-must-stop-nuclear-disaster-ukraine/
Yes it's a huge risk but if we don't, we see civilisation and the rule of law crushed in western Europe.
Ceasefire and enter talks in 48 hours or we install a no fly zone.
Stand up to him.
And I think you are 'deluded' if you think otherwise. The Russian forces are slowly crushing Ukraine. Pulverising the people, destroying the country.
Do you really think Putin gives a flying fig if all that's left of Ukraine is rubble? Or if he loses 4000 tanks and 40,000 personnel in the process?
All he cares about is that he has annihilated the country of Ukraine. Which he has.
Putin got what he wanted. And we let him get away with it.
Russia’s generals aren’t going to merrily send their tanks into Kiev kill zones. They will instead first engage in days or weeks of heavy bombardment. In our worst nightmares, this would also include poison gas but I doubt they will flinch at the wholesale use cluster and vacuum bombs.
Time to convince Zelensky into a 21st century Operation Pied Piper. Organised evacuation of every child in the country before it’s too late.
People talk about 'risk' well, yes, life is a risk. If we don't stand up to this ogre we have let the values of western civilisation be bullied into submission.
And to those citing Afghanistan re. Margaret Thatcher, this is Europe. A country which was democratic and free. We have effectively done nothing (don't kid yourselves in self-satisfaction otherwise), nothing at all to stop Putin getting away with it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60626921
And Russia will have burnt through a lot of ammunition and other consumables. Given sanctions, their ability to replenish will be rather constrained.
Was 76/$ a fortnight ago, so everything imported is doing to be double the price - if they can find anyone who wants to sell to them?
He wants Russia to be a superpower. To be feared. To have a sphere of influence. To be the regional hegemon.
Russia has achieved none of those things, even if they do grind Ukraine into the dust.
But instead of a conventional victory he chose the pulverising option (as per Syria). He has pulverised Ukraine whilst the west militarily watched on.
Going directly to a hot war is exactly what Putin wants.
I was beginning to believe you might not be a troll… but now I have my doubts again… you have flipped from “do nothing Putin won’t invade why is the west being so aggressive in arming Ukraine” (which is what Putin wanted at the time) to “we most go in guns blazing and sacrifice all our moral authority while giving Putin an excuse to escalate to nukes if he wants” (which is what Putin currently wants)
I don’t mind. why should I be frightened of dying?
There’s no reason for it, you’ve gotta go sometime.’
Pink Floyd 'Brain Damage / Eclipse from the Pulse tour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z39KZAryzk
Timeless genius
Oh wow!
Economic blockade (for that is what our heavy sanctions are) is a very effective, albeit slower and less dramatic, way of warfare. It was a big part of how WW1 was won, the CSA crushed and Napoleon defeated.
Banks are more effective than tanks.
If we don't stand up to Putin now then there is no civilisation left worth defending.
No, scared. Scared of escalation. Scared of nuclear fallout. Scared of nuclear war.
I get that. But we have let this madman pulverise a country. I think the time for courage has come and for us to stand up to the bully. For their sakes if not ours.
And this one will be a doozy, because we are talking about Russian truck refueling in the 64km column north of Kyiv. 🧵
1/
No matter what kind of fuel conservation techniques they engaged in. The 1st 17km or so of that 64 km Russian Army column is out of fuel.
They planned a 3-day operation which is in its 8th day.
And given the temperatures and radio use, those vehicles have dead batteries.
The Russians have formed the world's longest POW camp. And the Ukrainians don't have to feed it.
https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1499894935209795594?s=21
We should give him 48 hours to ceasefire or we install a no fly zone. Let's do this step by step.
A No Fly Zone means a widening of the war to all NATO powers vs Russia. It would be a real risk of nuclear apocalypse.
People should be paying far more attention to what is going on in Finland. The president travelled to the US yesterday and there is a meeting between Finland and Sweden today. It is not clear what has been discussed about these countries joining NATO. Will the US really want this, given that it increases the likelihood of conflict? But Finland joining NATO is going to be intolerable to Putin. A 1300km land border with NATO ? It is only going to be seen as an extreme provocation.
What are Finland meant to do though? If they don't join NATO then what are their choices? Putin has said that he views Finland as being part of his Greater Russia. Do we leave a defiant Finland to a Ukraine style pulverisation because we are scared of nuclear war? Or can we tolerate a Finnish government sympathetic to Russia within the EU, potentially with Russian military bases in Finland? If they are shunned by NATO, what other options do they have?
What kind of moral fibre is that?
I accept that the alternative is a hell of a risk but if we don't ... what are we, really?
Yes, the risks of escalation are huge. Potentially devastating. But we cannot sit by militarily and let this country get crushed by Putin's thuggery just to protect our own skins.
That's just my view. If I'm wrong, that's fine.
Britain became the leading world power after the Napoleon's wars by blockading France, and financing the Austrians and Prussians to fight. Napoleon invaded Russia in order to force Russia into joining his Continental system in response to blockade.
The allied blockade of Germany and Austro-Hungary was a key strategy in winning WW1.
Without US loans and Lend Lease, the British war effort would have become desultory in 1941.
Economic warfare is a key war winning strategy. Less spectacular than tanks but more effective.
MAD
#Gold Vitali Lukianenko 🇺🇦
#Silver Oleksandr Kazik 🇺🇦
#Bronze Dmytro Suiarko 🇺🇦
#Beijing2022 #WinterParalympics #ParaNordic
@ukrparalympic
As some suggest, we could go in heroically, guns blazing and accept the risk he might blow everyone up. Alternatively we could wait for sanctions to starve him out, but that is painful as he keeps killing hostages. It’s a long shot to assume the gunman might change his mind. He has an accomplice, the best bet is that they end it.
And that's the problem we face. We are in a crowded bar with a drunken Begbie wannabe, who will take any provocation to start a fight.
Those who are suggesting we just move to a different pub should ask what'll happen when he's trashed the one he's in, and moves onto our new one.
Putin: an uglier Begbie.
Could we do more? Of course. We could fire a nuke at Moscow. Would that be wise? No.
Doing what it’s right is not always easy. We are arming the Ukrainians, we are hitting Russia economically, they are isolated in the world bodies, they are excluded from cultural events. We should do things like stop buying their oil and gas, continue to apply additional sanctions, etc.
But things like boots on the ground and a NFZ carry a high risk of escalation and providing Putin with a propaganda excuse. The biggest advantage the West has is that the world is united (apart from Syria, Byelorus, N Korea and Eritrea) in horror. We don’t want to lose that by opening a case that we are the ones escalating it
Inclined to agree with Dr F; we really don't want nuclear weapons flying about and NATO vs Russia would inevitably lead to that.
(Assuming @Heathener doesn't get his/her (sorry not sure which it is) way, and we're not all cinders by the end of March.)
https://twitter.com/KampfmitKette/status/1499305605781200900/video/1
#Schröder
https://twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1499866397056413698?
Still, if he turn's out to be right, kudo's to him! ;-)
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45%
Con 38%
LD 9%
Grn 3%
Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44%
Lab 28%
Con 17%
LD 10%
Grn 2%
Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42%
Con 23%
PC 16%
LD 10%
Ref 5%
Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8)
Lab 1 seat (nc)
Con 0 seats (-6)
LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1499991645298774020