The Russian proposals – at least something is on the table – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
They are definitely better positioned around Kyiv, otherwise I agree that it's been largely static since day 5 (as can be seen from the MoD maps - first few days were also when Ukr was least organised and equipped).MrEd said:
Except they are not really. We have had several days where their advances seem to be minimal apart from around Mariupol suburbs and the capture of an army base. Ukrainian numbers are undoubtedly exaggerated but it’s clear there are heavy losses. It’s also clear that Belarus’ army won’t join the attack which means Russia’s convoy to the NW of Kiev has to keep an eye on its rear. If the foreign legions even have a few ex-soldiers, particularly US and U.K., then that helps replenish some of the losses.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
I don’t know whether Putin’s ‘offer’ is genuine but, given he’s not asking for demilitarisation, it’s likely he is coming at this from a position of needing to exit quickly. Russia just cannot go on like this.
I also agree that Russia's offer is one of someone who has realised that they've screwed up. Given the Pentagon have said that there are effectively zero signs of Russia preparing for further mobilisation, and >98% of Russian forces around the border are committed they either have given up on conquering the whole country, or think that what they have is sufficient. The latter explanation is inconsistent with observable facts.
Question is what the mutually agreeable landing zone for peace is. With Ukrainian morale so high I can't see Zelenskyy handing over Ukr territory, nor Putin reversing the annex of Crimea. The status quo ante bellum, with a few billion of Russian reserves peeled off is the only thing that both sides could sell, and even that's a stretch.0 -
My thoughts too. Suggests special forces.kyf_100 said:
Is it usual for generals to be killed in battle? I imagine them being 30 miles behind the front line, General Melchett style.williamglenn said:The Russians have lost a second general.
Major General Vitaly Gerasimov, who took part in the second #Chechen war, the war in #Syria and the annexation of #Crimea, was killed in battles near Kharkiv.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500952134937894912
And leaky Russian security. An immense surprise all through. They seem incapable of keeping anything secret.
And. For me, the crucial sign it isn't going well is Syrian mercenaries, if true. Not a move of an army that is happy with their progress.0 -
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
2 -
I said if the invasion were reversed. That includes the incursions into the Donbas, unless in the unlikely event that some form of a settlement with Ukraine is reached that allows them to stay. However, as you suggest, I don't see it including Crimea, and I don't see Crimea going back.kle4 said:
How is it bollocks? So long as Donbas and Crimea are in Russian hands the invasion has not stopped.Luckyguy1983 said:
Utter bollocks. Of course it follows. Sanctions are meant to alter behaviour. If they remain in place, then there really is no reason not to invade again.kle4 said:
Until it returns the territories it has taken in Donbas and Crimea the invasion is still ongoing. The West looked the other way on that before and it did no good, so it absolutely should not reduce sanctions until Russia withdraws itself from the entire territory.Luckyguy1983 said:
If the invasion is reversed, the sanctions must absolutely be lifted. Otherwise how would sanctions ever be effective against anyone ever again?kle4 said:
Indeed. Yet this whole business started over Ukraine wanting to look West more, and that's increasingly the case (for some reason a violent basketcase next door and his mini me to the north stress them out), so they cannot resile from it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's no way Russia allows Ukraine to have an EU army in it.NickPalmer said:I think the second one is the hard one. Maybe they could live with giving up Crimea, but giving up the east provinces would be hard. The third could probably be sorted as "EU but not NATO".
Hence it seeming a grim stalemate will prevail, if the invasion is blunted.
And that is why sanctions must not be reduced if/when fighting does stall or stop - it doesn't make Ukraine any safer to stop them, and unless it concedes massively to Ukraine there is no reason to do so.
Since it won't, there's no reason to remove them. They are effective the longer they go on.
The sanctions are because Russia has invaded. It doesn't follow, therefore, that all is well once they withdraw troops. What if they decided to do it all again a year from now?
So by your own logic the sanctions should continue whilst those areas are occupied since their behaviour has not been altered sufficiently.
(Crimea is more awkward since virtually no one seems to conclude it would want to rejoin Ukraine).
So I am happy to concede your point - once Russia has altered its behaviour the sanctions should stop. The behaviour being the annexation and occupation of bits of Ukraine, not just bits beyond those taken in 2014.0 -
Not up to us, but If I was Ukraine I'd evaluate it on what it would mean for Ukraine rather than guessing what the Russian state of mind might be. Otherwise one gets into no-win negotiations where whoever thinks they're winning insists on pressing on, and the war goes on and on. I don't think an outright win is achievable for either side - Ukraine is fighting a good defensive war but has no knockout strategy and is very gradually losing ground; Russia couldn't hold the country down even if it occupied every square metre, and is being hammered economically.Chameleon said:That's such a dramatic change in demands (from the genocide of the Ukrainian identity to just cementing the de-facto reality pre-war) that it indicates Moscow know the war isn't going well, nor is their situation likely to improve.
1 -
It’s worse than that. The Russian conditions include Ukraine disarming before Russia withdraws - in other words effectively unconditional surrender.Cyclefree said:Why would anyone trust a word Russia says? How can Ukraine possibly reach a treaty with such an untrustworthy violent neighbour?
It’s absurd.2 -
IIRC OSINT located that encounter to a gynasium Russian military police came from, and the unit from there was more or less eliminated to a man (w/ photographic evidence) early on.rottenborough said:
oh.Benpointer said:Interesting 'town hall' in the Kuzbass (Kemerovo Oblast) which purportedly shows the Governor Sergey Tsivilyov being given a hard time over the fate of Russian soldiers.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1500769632768118788?s=20&t=8xWoQkb8ZZqDdVTJfX41IA0 -
We can still call her Blessed Margaret though, right?DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.2 -
Given the intelligence information that the west seems to be getting the Ukrainians should have a good idea of how things are in the Kremlin.0
-
That's true, and the terms the Finns accepted are not unlike what Russia seems to be offering now. The crucial part for the Finns was that they kept a meaningful, albeit with enforced neutrality, independence.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
However, it did take a while for the Finns to capitulate, and arguably it was only because the Russians were forced to up their game and change tactics and strategy from "this will be a pushover" to something more realistic. The question is can the modern Russian armed forces actually do that? Certainly Stalin crippled his own war effort by having shot all his best generals in the purges a few years before, but there was no equivalent in the 1939 Soviet Union of the looting and hollowing out of the armed forces that it would seem the Russian kleptocracy has achieved over the last couple of decades. No-one would have dared.
Edit to add: and the Finns did not get anything like the materiel that the Ukrainians have been given, partly due to the Western powers not having much to spare, partly because the only easy route to supply Finland was through neutral Norway and Sweden who, understandably, decided it was better to not get too involved, no matter how much they would have wished to.1 -
The Russians really really want the water supply for Crimea. Not sure if they have secured it yet.Chameleon said:
They are definitely better positioned around Kyiv, otherwise I agree that it's been largely static since day 5 (as can be seen from the MoD maps - first few days were also when Ukr was least organised and equipped).MrEd said:
Except they are not really. We have had several days where their advances seem to be minimal apart from around Mariupol suburbs and the capture of an army base. Ukrainian numbers are undoubtedly exaggerated but it’s clear there are heavy losses. It’s also clear that Belarus’ army won’t join the attack which means Russia’s convoy to the NW of Kiev has to keep an eye on its rear. If the foreign legions even have a few ex-soldiers, particularly US and U.K., then that helps replenish some of the losses.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
I don’t know whether Putin’s ‘offer’ is genuine but, given he’s not asking for demilitarisation, it’s likely he is coming at this from a position of needing to exit quickly. Russia just cannot go on like this.
I also agree that Russia's offer is one of someone who has realised that they've screwed up. Given the Pentagon have said that there are effectively zero signs of Russia preparing for further mobilisation, and >98% of Russian forces around the border are committed they either have given up on conquering the whole country, or think that what they have is sufficient. The latter explanation is inconsistent with observable facts.
Question is what the mutually agreeable landing zone for peace is. With Ukrainian morale so high I can't see Zelenskyy handing over Ukr territory, nor Putin reversing the annex of Crimea. The status quo ante bellum, with a few billion of Russian reserves peeled off is the only thing that both sides could sell, and even that's a stretch.2 -
Though Vietnam was originally fought by the USA to protect South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam invasion (much like the Korean War).Leon said:
Russia is absolutely not whipped, it is sunk. Like the USA in Vietnam. The parallel is eerie, and you should appreciate itSeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
America poured billions into winning that Vietnam war, against a 3rd world opponent, yet it could not win because the people on the ground bitterly resisted any occupation - and that means by anyone, France, America, or China. Vietnam is a proudly independent country, as any visitor can attest. They REALLY hate China, by the way. Much more than the USA, despite the horrors of the war
Ukraine is now, surely, similarly disposed to Russia. For Ukrainians, Russia has gone from giant friendly neighbour (at best, for some) to evil bullying abuser (to all), in a week. It is now the hated enemy, and that must be a truth for decades to come
Russia has no hope of occupying and repressing a vast nation of 44m people who despise it, so Russia will only lose. The question is whether Russia loses fast, or slow, or with an outburst of H bombs
In this case it is Russia doing the invading0 -
I’ve passed that one on to the Committee. They’ll report shortly. Hold off until then.RobD said:
We can still call her Blessed Margaret though, right?DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.0 -
Ugh, the most tiresome whinge in politics. You absolutely can, because individual politicians will get known by different names and terms, particularly in their home countries. For all I know some of those are referred to in a familiar way at home, a sort of Mayor Pete style thing.DougSeal said:
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
Probably not, but terminology is not fixed by firm rules. Americans would refer to Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Johnson, but that's not how we'd refer to them. We might say 'The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson' and refer to him as PM when asking a question, but not 'Prime Minister Johnson'.
I've beat my head on a wall about this issue in the past as I just cannot accept the arguments advanced as to why it is unfair or bad, even unintentionally. A lot of people refer to him as Boris, and artificially constricting themselves to use an approved term won't have any effect. It's not formal reporting. As Leon notes that is just how he is known. Professionals in formal capacities refer to him as such to me when reporting on missives from Whitehall and Westminster.3 -
I just can't see how Zelenskyy could sell a loss of land (remember the Donbas oblasts including major anti-Russian cities still not under Russian occupation to a country that is willing and able to fight on.NickPalmer said:
Not up to us, but If I was Ukraine I'd evaluate it on what it would mean for Ukraine rather than guessing what the Russian state of mind might be. Otherwise one gets into no-win negotiations where whoever thinks they're winning insists on pressing on, and the war goes on and on. I don't think an outright win is achievable for either side - Ukraine is fighting a good defensive war but has no knockout strategy and is very gradually losing ground; Russia couldn't hold the country down even if it occupied every square metre, and is being hammered economically.Chameleon said:That's such a dramatic change in demands (from the genocide of the Ukrainian identity to just cementing the de-facto reality pre-war) that it indicates Moscow know the war isn't going well, nor is their situation likely to improve.
1 -
They don't get a choice.Leon said:
Supposedly about half the sovereign wealth Putin built (deliberately, for this moment) is held "outside" Russia. So about $300 billion, I believe. RoughlyRichard_Tyndall said:
I have no idea what the scale of Russian assets is in frozen accounts around the world. It seems to me that an international convention could be convened to agree on the legal seizure of these assets and their use in reparations to help rebuild Ukraine.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
Now as I say I have no idea how much wealth is in banks outside of Russia so it maybe that this would only be a tiny fraction of what was needed. But it would be interesting to know exactly how many of those many billions are in non-Russian banks.
Its frozen status is one of the things which has totally nonplussed Moscow. They did not expect this
$300bn would surely be enough to rebuild Ukraine, and make it liveable again, and then some. No way Russia agrees to it0 -
But he IS known as "Boris"DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
It's not something you can change by diktat on PB. The whole world knows him as Boris. Boris Bikes. Boris!
If you said "Johnson" you would actually confuse people. Who? Who is this Johnson character? Oh, you mean BORIS Johnson. Ah!
He has a brand. It has been tarnished, and it is clear you despise it. But it is a thing. Get over it5 -
I’ll accept it’s a tiresome winge but the MOST tiresome? It’s not even in the top 5.kle4 said:
Ugh, the most tiresome whinge in politics. You absolutely can, because individual politicians will get known by different names and terms, particularly in their home countries. For all I know some of those are referred to in a familiar way at home, a sort of Mayor Pete style thing.DougSeal said:
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
Probably not, but terminology is not fixed by firm rules. Americans would refer to Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Johnson, but that's not how we'd refer to them. We might say 'The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson' and refer to him as PM when asking a question, but not 'Prime Minister Johnson'.
I've beat my head on a wall about this issue in the past as I just cannot accept the arguments advanced as to why it is unfair or bad, even unintentionally. A lot of people refer to him as Boris, and artificially constricting themselves to use an approved term won't have any effect. It's not formal reporting.1 -
As a NATO member.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not going to be part of the EU army but we will be part of the defence of Europe in alliance with the EUMexicanpete said:
Of course it won't. One of the reasons we left the EU was our opposition to an EU army.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
We don't pay the golf club subs any more, so we can't expect to be the Club Captain.0 -
He did quite a long and poetic one for Sunday.FrankBooth said:I notice Zelensky has just posted a video from his office. That's the first in a long time. I assumed he was well out of the way now of Kiev.
https://twitter.com/WARUKRAINE2022/status/1500587755805548555?t=BVlrmWHBFZVOHcr2dmWKgg&s=191 -
I think the Ukrainian Government should refer Putin to the reply given in the case of Russian warship vs. Snake Island.
But it’s their choice, not ours. That’s the principle we support - their right to choose.1 -
After this and the UK lead role in Ukraine and the Baltic States UK cooperation in the defence of Europe will be very much part of a wider security and defence agreementDougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
I am amused that Boris being known as Boris by 95% of the population should upset you0 -
The US and EU freeze of RU central bank reserves must have caused a very interesting meeting back in China's HQ.Richard_Tyndall said:
They don't get a choice.Leon said:
Supposedly about half the sovereign wealth Putin built (deliberately, for this moment) is held "outside" Russia. So about $300 billion, I believe. RoughlyRichard_Tyndall said:
I have no idea what the scale of Russian assets is in frozen accounts around the world. It seems to me that an international convention could be convened to agree on the legal seizure of these assets and their use in reparations to help rebuild Ukraine.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
Now as I say I have no idea how much wealth is in banks outside of Russia so it maybe that this would only be a tiny fraction of what was needed. But it would be interesting to know exactly how many of those many billions are in non-Russian banks.
Its frozen status is one of the things which has totally nonplussed Moscow. They did not expect this
$300bn would surely be enough to rebuild Ukraine, and make it liveable again, and then some. No way Russia agrees to it1 -
Like any backbencher becoming 'senior' when badmouthing the government, any current whinge gets default place in the top five.DougSeal said:
I’ll accept it’s a tiresome winge but the MOST tiresome? It’s not even in the top 5.kle4 said:
Ugh, the most tiresome whinge in politics. You absolutely can, because individual politicians will get known by different names and terms, particularly in their home countries. For all I know some of those are referred to in a familiar way at home, a sort of Mayor Pete style thing.DougSeal said:
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
Probably not, but terminology is not fixed by firm rules. Americans would refer to Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Johnson, but that's not how we'd refer to them. We might say 'The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson' and refer to him as PM when asking a question, but not 'Prime Minister Johnson'.
I've beat my head on a wall about this issue in the past as I just cannot accept the arguments advanced as to why it is unfair or bad, even unintentionally. A lot of people refer to him as Boris, and artificially constricting themselves to use an approved term won't have any effect. It's not formal reporting.3 -
How can you seriously negotiate with someone who insists you accept their invented reality ?
While continuing to murder your people.
https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1500939069412491270
Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, is in the Security Council, claiming Ukrainians are shelling themselves. …0 -
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.2 -
How much have the Russians even spent on Crimea so far? And that's an area that is pro-Russian and wasn't reduced to rubble when it was taken.0
-
God, if so, how awful for those people. As much victims as the Ukrainians in many ways.Chameleon said:
IIRC OSINT located that encounter to a gynasium Russian military police came from, and the unit from there was more or less eliminated to a man (w/ photographic evidence) early on.rottenborough said:
oh.Benpointer said:Interesting 'town hall' in the Kuzbass (Kemerovo Oblast) which purportedly shows the Governor Sergey Tsivilyov being given a hard time over the fate of Russian soldiers.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1500769632768118788?s=20&t=8xWoQkb8ZZqDdVTJfX41IA0 -
That is correct, we remember the winter war as a defeat for the Russian army, because it lost so many men against a much smaller nation. and they did 270,000 men by some counts, higher estimates are also available.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
But in the end Finland asked for peace and gave up a lot of territory. it had to ask for peace for a few reasons, perhaps the biggest was they where running out of ammunition, and also there economy was collapsing.
Its not impossible that this war is remembered as a defeat for Russia, but in the agreement/treaty that ends in Russia has gained some territory.1 -
No, it can also end in Putin's defeat and a nuclear war.Leon said:My guess: this war now ends with Putin's defeat, or a nuclear war. That's it
It is highly unlikely that in the event of a nuclear war he would survive. I might not, stuck as I am in Birmingham and trying to sell our home here before returning to my family the other side of the world. However for not one nanosecond would I wish us to avoid that scenario. WW2 taught me (and it should have done you too) that you cannot apease agressors because they will always think they can have/deserve more.1 -
European defence without the U.K. is silly, and fortunately our partners know that and don’t question it, and not do we. They also know we don’t want to be part of a permanent structure other than NATO and so the answer will be shaped to allow for that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
After this and the UK lead role in Ukraine and the Baltic States UK cooperation in the defence of Europe will be very much part of a wider security and defence agreementDougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
I am amused that Boris being known as Boris by 95% of the population should upset you
2 -
And Boris sounds a bit, well, Russian so might not be the positive it once was.Leon said:
But he IS known as "Boris"DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
It's not something you can change by diktat on PB. The whole world knows him as Boris. Boris Bikes. Boris!
If you said "Johnson" you would actually confuse people. Who? Who is this Johnson character? Oh, you mean BORIS Johnson. Ah!
He has a brand. It has been tarnished, and it is clear you despise it. But it is a thing. Get over it0 -
Some there there in what you say, but not sure I concur with most points.MrEd said:
The huge difference from that war was that Russia was not being squeezed economically while it fought. Replacing equipment was also a lot easier, especially in tanks and planes.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
For example, methinks Russia is arguably in better shape - sanctions & all - economically in 2022 than in 1940, due in part to massive dislocations (to put it mildly) in 1930s USSR. And will take months for sanctions & loss of trading partners to bite; not sure Ukrainians have got that long.
As for supply chain, am not sure that Red Army had it easier versus Finland than Force Z has it versus Ukraine. Would take a detailed transport/logistics study to figure it out, but Finland was at the far end of a long tail, tightly circumscribed by geography, for example just one option, Murmansk railway, for 3/4 of the Finnish-Soviet border.
And while Putin's army is hardly a model of efficiency (to put it most mildly) it has NOT been torn apart by massive purge of it's officer corps and civil support, as was the case under Stalin. Can and is argued, that this actually helped Soviets beat Nazis in the long run. But short-term was a disaster, versus Finland in 1940 and a year later versus Barbarossa.0 -
All those three conditions can be fudged*. Which is maybe positive. Question is whether either side will be willing to fudge.
*
1. Agreement to a discussion on the future state of Crimea and regions in Donbas taking into account the wishes of the inhabitants.
2. Possibly a variation on Austria's declaration of neutrality1 -
Germany - France - UK will cooperate on European defence and security both inside and outside NATOMexicanpete said:
As a NATO member.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not going to be part of the EU army but we will be part of the defence of Europe in alliance with the EUMexicanpete said:
Of course it won't. One of the reasons we left the EU was our opposition to an EU army.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
We don't pay the golf club subs any more, so we can't expect to be the Club Captain.0 -
[]HYUFD said:
Kyiv will likely still fall within a month but the problem will then come with any guerrilla war after if terms are not agreed.Leon said:
Oh, for sure, Russia could still claim a "victory", but it will be the same kind of victory as Napoleon seizing a burned out, deserted Moscow - which was followed by a terrible, tragic retreatChameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
Putin, unlikely Hitler or Napoleon though sensibly invaded as the Russia winter was ending with Spring and Summer on the way not in Summer with autumn and winter on the way1 -
If Hitler had had atomic bombs in 1939 we likely would not have gone to war even after he invaded Poland.Ally_B1 said:
No, it can also end in Putin's defeat and a nuclear war.Leon said:My guess: this war now ends with Putin's defeat, or a nuclear war. That's it
It is highly unlikely that in the event of a nuclear war he would survive. I might not, stuck as I am in Birmingham and trying to sell our home here before returning to my family the other side of the world. However for not one nanosecond would I wish us to avoid that scenario. WW2 taught me (and it should have done you too) that you cannot apease agressors because they will always think they can have/deserve more.
We may not even have won the Battle of Britain unless we had had them too and Hitler therefore decided not to try and invade us.
Fortunately the US got them first but had Japan got them too before the war ended (but after Berlin had fallen to the Allies) I doubt the US would have ever launched them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or invaded Japan and Japan would never have surrendered and the war would have ended in stalemate in the Far East even if it was still won in Europe0 -
Wasn’t the Russian ‘joke’ that they gained enough land to bury their dead?BigRich said:
That is correct, we remember the winter war as a defeat for the Russian army, because it lost so many men against a much smaller nation. and they did 270,000 men by some counts, higher estimates are also available.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
But in the end Finland asked for peace and gave up a lot of territory. it had to ask for peace for a few reasons, perhaps the biggest was they where running out of ammunition, and also there economy was collapsing.
Its not impossible that this war is remembered as a defeat for Russia, but in the agreement/treaty that ends in Russia has gained some territory.4 -
An honest questionNickPalmer said:
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.
You come across as - shall I say - more accommodating to Russia than most. How much, do you think, does this come from your youthful communism, when you must definitely have been sympathetic to Moscow? Have you asked yourself that? Maybe there is a lingering affection or admiration or loyalty, which goes beyond the facts as they are, now?
This is not a question designed to trip you up. I am genuinely curious. Because I have a couple of famuly members who are similar to you, if not way more extreme than you. One is an old lefty who just can't let go an innate pro-Russia instinct, even tho she admits that Russia is now anything but communist. Yet she still want Russia to "win", somehow...
Intriguing2 -
Escalate with what? Other than mad nuke suicide bid.NickPalmer said:
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.
If they move too many forces from all across the vast empire that is the RU fed then they open themselves to possible nibblings by others into their territory.
0 -
You don't for one nanosecond wish us to avoid a scenario that ends in nuclear oblivion?Ally_B1 said:
No, it can also end in Putin's defeat and a nuclear war.Leon said:My guess: this war now ends with Putin's defeat, or a nuclear war. That's it
It is highly unlikely that in the event of a nuclear war he would survive. I might not, stuck as I am in Birmingham and trying to sell our home here before returning to my family the other side of the world. However for not one nanosecond would I wish us to avoid that scenario. WW2 taught me (and it should have done you too) that you cannot apease agressors because they will always think they can have/deserve more.0 -
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500959074653024259
"Jesus, Ukraine just killed Gen. Maj. Vitaly Gerassimov, chief of staff of the 41 Army. At Kharkiv.
Russia, if you're listening: delete your army. Claimed by Ukrainian military intelligence. Confirmed a Russian source"
Bellingcat confirming the death of a Russian army General. Multiple sources confirming it.0 -
“Get over it”. The Brexiter’s favourite thought terminating cliche, endlessly deployed. Yet another brief reductive statement you stick on any proposition, with which to end thought on the given subject.Leon said:
But he IS known as "Boris"DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
It's not something you can change by diktat on PB. The whole world knows him as Boris. Boris Bikes. Boris!
If you said "Johnson" you would actually confuse people. Who? Who is this Johnson character? Oh, you mean BORIS Johnson. Ah!
He has a brand. It has been tarnished, and it is clear you despise it. But it is a thing. Get over it1 -
Problem is that Russia losing isn't a synonym for Ukraine winning. I do want Russia to lose, to ensure there's a high price for invading countries, but I care about Ukraine, not Russia.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?0 -
Local Goverment makes no sense Part 346, on different devolution deals being looked at.
https://twitter.com/AriannaGi/status/1500832492928049155
Andrew Teale: There is a theory that if anybody ever understands the structure of English local government, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which says that this has already happened.4 -
Jesus, Ukraine just killed Gen. Maj. Vitaly Gerassimov, chief of staff of the 41 Army. At Kharkiv.
Russia, if you're listening: delete your army.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/15009590746530242590 -
Little interest in Essex in more devolution as that map sets out, it depends on the regionkle4 said:Local Goverment makes no sense Part 346, on different devolution deals being looked at.
https://twitter.com/AriannaGi/status/1500832492928049155
Andrew Teale: There is a theory that if anybody ever understands the structure of English local government, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which says that this has already happened.0 -
Oh FFS. This is just about the name "Boris"DougSeal said:
“Get over it”. The Brexiter’s favourite thought terminating cliche, endlessly deployed. Yet another brief reductive statement you stick on any proposition, with which to end thought on the given subject.Leon said:
But he IS known as "Boris"DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
It's not something you can change by diktat on PB. The whole world knows him as Boris. Boris Bikes. Boris!
If you said "Johnson" you would actually confuse people. Who? Who is this Johnson character? Oh, you mean BORIS Johnson. Ah!
He has a brand. It has been tarnished, and it is clear you despise it. But it is a thing. Get over it
Honestly. GET OVER IT
You guys need to get over everything, from Brexit to Boris, because you are fucking up our politics. We're out, it's done, maybe it is shit, maybe it isn't. there will be upsides and downsides, let's try and pull together as a nation. And forget about the bloody name most people use for the bloody prime minister, he will be gone in time0 -
There are no winners. Both sides have lost. But only one side is culpable.FF43 said:
Problem is that Russia losing isn't a synonym for Ukraine winning. I do want Russia to lose, to ensure there's a high price for invading countries, but I care about Ukraine, not Russia.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
4 -
He is right though. Boris is known as Boris. Ken was known as Ken. It’s in the Mayoral Chateauneuf-du-Pape.DougSeal said:
“Get over it”. The Brexiter’s favourite thought terminating cliche, endlessly deployed. Yet another brief reductive statement you stick on any proposition, with which to end thought on the given subject.Leon said:
But he IS known as "Boris"DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
It's not something you can change by diktat on PB. The whole world knows him as Boris. Boris Bikes. Boris!
If you said "Johnson" you would actually confuse people. Who? Who is this Johnson character? Oh, you mean BORIS Johnson. Ah!
He has a brand. It has been tarnished, and it is clear you despise it. But it is a thing. Get over it
1 -
One thing to consider on the whole ‘will Putin use nukes’ and that is the attitude of China. From a Chinese standpoint, it wouldn’t be great if Putin dropped a bomb not because they are concerned over the Ukraine but because it would almost certainly to a greater push by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to gain nuclear weapons. Ex-PM Abe in Japan is already pushing for his. So it might be China is acting as a brake here.4
-
I think there is more than Russian sympathy going on. There is also a mentality that thinks of global politics in terms of power between competing blocs. Rather than a world made up of independent nations that should be secure and free to choose their own future.Leon said:
An honest questionNickPalmer said:
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.
You come across as - shall I say - more accommodating to Russia than most. How much, do you think, does this come from your youthful communism, when you must definitely have been sympathetic to Moscow? Have you asked yourself that? Maybe there is a lingering affection or admiration or loyalty, which goes beyond the facts as they are, now?
This is not a question designed to trip you up. I am genuinely curious. Because I have a couple of famuly members who are similar to you, if not way more extreme than you. One is an old lefty who just can't let go an innate pro-Russia instinct, even tho she admits that Russia is now anything but communist. Yet she still want Russia to "win", somehow...
Intriguing2 -
I think that Lenin used to call people like your family members 'useful idiots'.Leon said:
An honest questionNickPalmer said:
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.
You come across as - shall I say - more accommodating to Russia than most. How much, do you think, does this come from your youthful communism, when you must definitely have been sympathetic to Moscow? Have you asked yourself that? Maybe there is a lingering affection or admiration or loyalty, which goes beyond the facts as they are, now?
This is not a question designed to trip you up. I am genuinely curious. Because I have a couple of famuly members who are similar to you, if not way more extreme than you. One is an old lefty who just can't let go an innate pro-Russia instinct, even tho she admits that Russia is now anything but communist. Yet she still want Russia to "win", somehow...
Intriguing
0 -
Reporting across multiple sources:
#Russian general was liquidated near #Kharkiv
Major General Vitaly Gerasimov, who took part in the second #Chechen war, the war in #Syria and the annexation of #Crimea, was killed in battles near Kharkiv.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500952134937894912
Nephew of the Chief of the General Staff:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov0 -
In the strange case of the Right Hon. B. deP. Johnson MP, believe there is some evidence that HE not only does not disapprove of vulgarians (esp. voters) calling him "Boris" but actively encouraged this incivility?kle4 said:
Ugh, the most tiresome whinge in politics. You absolutely can, because individual politicians will get known by different names and terms, particularly in their home countries. For all I know some of those are referred to in a familiar way at home, a sort of Mayor Pete style thing.DougSeal said:
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
Probably not, but terminology is not fixed by firm rules. Americans would refer to Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Johnson, but that's not how we'd refer to them. We might say 'The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson' and refer to him as PM when asking a question, but not 'Prime Minister Johnson'.
I've beat my head on a wall about this issue in the past as I just cannot accept the arguments advanced as to why it is unfair or bad, even unintentionally. A lot of people refer to him as Boris, and artificially constricting themselves to use an approved term won't have any effect. It's not formal reporting. As Leon notes that is just how he is known. Professionals in formal capacities refer to him as such to me when reporting on missives from Whitehall and Westminster.
Wonder why? Perhaps it's because it helped get him noticed, publicized, promoted, elected?
Average politico would give their left ball and/or ovary to be generally known by their first name or nickname. Indeed, is one of the hallmarks of political success.
This is one area (about only one I can think of) where Boris is truly channelling . . . wait for it . . . Winston.0 -
Any "fudge" that gives Russia more than they would have got via negotiation in 2014 is just rewarding aggression.FF43 said:All those three conditions can be fudged*. Which is maybe positive. Question is whether either side will be willing to fudge.
*
1. Agreement to a discussion on the future state of Crimea and regions in Donbas taking into account the wishes of the inhabitants.
2. Possibly a variation on Austria's declaration of neutrality0 -
The impression I have is that the Russians are moderately successful in the South, where they have professional troops, but that they are really struggling in the North where their attack on Kyiv is basically stalled.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.0 -
I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once2
-
Exactly. Unpleasant autocratic types always like to believe that being more brutal, committing more war crimes, will be the secret step that allows them to turn defeat into victory. But it isn't the case. It will just make Ukrainians hate Russia more, Russian troops more likely to desert and the West impose more sanctions.rottenborough said:
Escalate with what? Other than mad nuke suicide bid.NickPalmer said:
Betting on middle-class Russians to decide the outcome misunderstands Russia IMO - we meet them, we hear lots about them because they're the usual contacts for journalists in Moscow. But they're not a decisive political force. The Army is, however, and it's conceivable that their losses will reach a stage that the generals think impossible to tolerate any longer. They might push Putin out. But they'd be just as likely to escalate as withdraw.rottenborough said:
Every day they can't win (and don't forget there must be 80 or 90% of Ukr so far left free) is another day when the economic shit grows for Putin and middle class RU realise this guy is going to totally fuck all their dreams for them and their chilldren.
If they move too many forces from all across the vast empire that is the RU fed then they open themselves to possible nibblings by others into their territory.0 -
Yes, we're just discussing it, and none of us have the ability or right to tell either side what to do.kle4 said:
Isn't that what you are also doing just as the rest of us, by commmenting on the viability or acceptability of negotiating positions?NickPalmer said:
As Mexicanpete says, it's not up to us, and we need to be careful not to tell them what to do from the comfort of our living rooms. As a negotiating position, it looks unachievable, but not out of sight.Luckyguy1983 said:Well, this is an interesting development. It's obviously a maximalist position. I agree with Mike, Russia might compromise on EU but not NATO. And why would Ukraine agree, when no NATO means it could happen again? Russia also might compromise on full independence for the breakaway republics possibly?
I don't understand your distinction of giving up NATO membership in exchange for military guarantees from NATO including a no fly zone - that would provide Ukraine with the security of NATO backing in the event of further invasion, which is precisely what Russia does not want
That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not about NATO troops or bases not being stationed in Ukraine, since they can already be station near Russia in existing NATO countries, it seems to therefore be about Ukraine, specifically, not being allowed to have NATO defence. Giving them that defence without membership therefore doesn't seem acceptable to Russia even as a face saving option
Great news President Putin, Ukaine will not join NATO
That's great, we have successfully ensured military neutrality then?
Well...NATO have promised that they would come th Ukraine's aid if we ever attacked again
Sure sure, but like now, right?
Well, no, they'd also impose a no fly zone
...You're fired.
But FWIW my reading of the Russian outlook is that they do see NATO as potentially threatening, just as we saw the Wasraw Pact. It wasn't that we thought the WP would roll in on a whim, but the possibility that they might was a factor that we always had to keep in mind. Russia has been invaded and came to the brink of disaster in living memory - these things weigh more heavily on their mind than they do for us sitting in NW Europe.
A defensive guarantee for Ukraine will look less threatening that having another big neighbour keen to join NATO, I think. I hope so, because otherwise the bargaining positions look irreconcilable, and we're in for several months of this awful war.0 -
Wow you've triggered the fanbois.DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
"Boris" is essentially Mr Johnson's stage name. Family and friends call him Alexander or Al. Referring to him by his preferred stage name smacks of sychophancy. He is not our friend, we are simply gullible peasants, if he was our friend he would say "you can call me Al".1 -
Oh yes we can!!!!!!!!Mexicanpete said:
Of course it won't. One of the reasons we left the EU was our opposition to an EU army.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
We don't pay the golf club subs any more, so we can't expect to be the Club Captain.
We are Johnson.....3 -
If he is able to think straight he ought to realise that his nephew would still be alive if it were not for the actions of his crazy boss.CarlottaVance said:Reporting across multiple sources:
#Russian general was liquidated near #Kharkiv
Major General Vitaly Gerasimov, who took part in the second #Chechen war, the war in #Syria and the annexation of #Crimea, was killed in battles near Kharkiv.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500952134937894912
Nephew of the Chief of the General Staff:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov0 -
And yet it's been a good period as far as human history goes!Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
2 -
We should be pushing the nuclear proliferation issue very very strongly. Not least how it is in no-one's interests. Yet if we decide that non-nuclear powers are at the mercy of invading nuclear powers what conclusion will states come to other than to get the bomb.MrEd said:One thing to consider on the whole ‘will Putin use nukes’ and that is the attitude of China. From a Chinese standpoint, it wouldn’t be great if Putin dropped a bomb not because they are concerned over the Ukraine but because it would almost certainly to a greater push by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to gain nuclear weapons. Ex-PM Abe in Japan is already pushing for his. So it might be China is acting as a brake here.
0 -
Think of the poor sods in Gove’s Department who have to remember and react to all the different levels of power. Will no one think of the administrators?kle4 said:Local Goverment makes no sense Part 346, on different devolution deals being looked at.
https://twitter.com/AriannaGi/status/1500832492928049155
Andrew Teale: There is a theory that if anybody ever understands the structure of English local government, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which says that this has already happened.
0 -
I think there is a deal to be struck. The UK can obviously choose what initiatives to be part of and can probably help shape those initiatives to some extent. But the EU is the multilateral organisation for Europe. They will be EU initiatives and the UK would provide a support role. There's no getting away from that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
After this and the UK lead role in Ukraine and the Baltic States UK cooperation in the defence of Europe will be very much part of a wider security and defence agreementDougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
I am amused that Boris being known as Boris by 95% of the population should upset you
I don't think the UK government is ready for an arrangement like that.0 -
It's odd that if the Russians plan was to take Kiev and force a surrender why did they put their best forces in the south?0
-
Exc: Ministers have raised concerns about Ireland’s open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees, arguing it creates UK security risk.
Dublin joined EU-wide scheme welcoming refugees for 3 years, via which Ukrainians can travel to UK (Common Travel Area) without biometric checks
Govt source: “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine, which creates a problem due to the CTA.
“We've seen before with migrants from Albania that they hv come through Dublin, into Belfast & across to the mainland to L'pool. That's created a drug cartel route
Source adds: “It's the Home Office that will get the blame if in three or fives’ years time there are problems with those who come. That’s why the security checks have to be done carefully now.”
Ireland has said it expects to welcome more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/15009649372077957130 -
True but Finland had a much smaller population and it wasn’t been shipped the level of weaponry Ukraine is getting. The Soviet Union at that stage also had a much greater populationSeaShantyIrish2 said:
Some there there in what you say, but not sure I concur with most points.MrEd said:
The huge difference from that war was that Russia was not being squeezed economically while it fought. Replacing equipment was also a lot easier, especially in tanks and planes.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
For example, methinks Russia is arguably in better shape - sanctions & all - economically in 2022 than in 1940, due in part to massive dislocations (to put it mildly) in 1930s USSR. And will take months for sanctions & loss of trading partners to bite; not sure Ukrainians have got that long.
As for supply chain, am not sure that Red Army had it easier versus Finland than Force Z has it versus Ukraine. Would take a detailed transport/logistics study to figure it out, but Finland was at the far end of a long tail, tightly circumscribed by geography, for example just one option, Murmansk railway, for 3/4 of the Finnish-Soviet border.
And while Putin's army is hardly a model of efficiency (to put it most mildly) it has NOT been torn apart by massive purge of it's officer corps and civil support, as was the case under Stalin. Can and is argued, that this actually helped Soviets beat Nazis in the long run. But short-term was a disaster, versus Finland in 1940 and a year later versus Barbarossa.
I seriously don’t think Russia has got months on the economic front, I would say at most weeks1 -
My word. The women of Ukraine say "Russian warship, go fuck yourself"
It is utterly inconceivable that Russian can defeat these people street by street, barn by barn. The Ukrainians will be protecting their newly-sanctified homeland, already baptised with the blood of heroes, Russia's will be a blundering army of increasingly dispirited conscripts, who just want to go home to St Petersburg or Novosibirsk, wondering why they are still living in a pile of rubble near Kyiv. How often have we seen this pattern repeated?
https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1500879877741891589?s=20&t=i_Qebjfe5EAq4Toq1XSxug
The occupiers seldom win. The Romans managed it; Russia is not the Roman Empire
0 -
I agree with that, but even in the South their success is limited. In Russian occupied Kherson Ukrainians are coming out and protesting. They won't be able to hold on to the city and continue their advance.rcs1000 said:
The impression I have is that the Russians are moderately successful in the South, where they have professional troops, but that they are really struggling in the North where their attack on Kyiv is basically stalled.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Of course, their success in the South also shows the importance of Ukraine restoring Crimea to their control so they can't be pincered next time. Perhaps as a compromise we can have an independent, neutral Crimea.0 -
I’m sorry you feel that way. The world of 2022, with smartphones that allow us to see the horror in Ukraine, but also connect us to our friends and family, the Covid vaccines that helped stop the pandemic from killing perhaps 3-5% of the worlds population, and all the other stuff - well ‘boomers’ helped make that world.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
3 -
Yes. And they gained a bit more after the end of the Continuation War (so called). And kept all of Finland in a half-way house - Findlandization (ditto) - for nearly half a century.turbotubbs said:
Wasn’t the Russian ‘joke’ that they gained enough land to bury their dead?BigRich said:
That is correct, we remember the winter war as a defeat for the Russian army, because it lost so many men against a much smaller nation. and they did 270,000 men by some counts, higher estimates are also available.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
But in the end Finland asked for peace and gave up a lot of territory. it had to ask for peace for a few reasons, perhaps the biggest was they where running out of ammunition, and also there economy was collapsing.
Its not impossible that this war is remembered as a defeat for Russia, but in the agreement/treaty that ends in Russia has gained some territory.0 -
THIS. 100x THIS.MrEd said:One thing to consider on the whole ‘will Putin use nukes’ and that is the attitude of China. From a Chinese standpoint, it wouldn’t be great if Putin dropped a bomb not because they are concerned over the Ukraine but because it would almost certainly to a greater push by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to gain nuclear weapons. Ex-PM Abe in Japan is already pushing for his. So it might be China is acting as a brake here.
0 -
Moan moan moan. Why do you need anyone to fuck off before you have 'a chance'? Your chance is now. Stop being such a vegan about it.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
3 -
It's their bloody tinkering that is part of the problem (not that it even has Local Gov in the name anymore).biggles said:
Think of the poor sods in Gove’s Department who have to remember and react to all the different levels of power. Will no one think of the administrators?kle4 said:Local Goverment makes no sense Part 346, on different devolution deals being looked at.
https://twitter.com/AriannaGi/status/1500832492928049155
Andrew Teale: There is a theory that if anybody ever understands the structure of English local government, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which says that this has already happened.
It's one area where a bit of Govian forcing through a more uniform solution on some areas despite opposition would do some good.1 -
I think Russia can certainly hold Eastern Ukraine, up to and probably including Kiev, as well as the cities and area nearest to the Crimea.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
But Lviv is a long way West. Google pegs it as 550km West of Kyiv, and close to the Polish border.
Occupying the whole country is a hell of a lot harder than just the Eastern half.2 -
Morgan Stanley today forecasted a Russian sovereign default in mid-April. With no IMF rescue, that means massive public sector cuts or hyperinflation.MrEd said:
True but Finland had a much smaller population and it wasn’t been shipped the level of weaponry Ukraine is getting. The Soviet Union at that stage also had a much greater populationSeaShantyIrish2 said:
Some there there in what you say, but not sure I concur with most points.MrEd said:
The huge difference from that war was that Russia was not being squeezed economically while it fought. Replacing equipment was also a lot easier, especially in tanks and planes.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
For example, methinks Russia is arguably in better shape - sanctions & all - economically in 2022 than in 1940, due in part to massive dislocations (to put it mildly) in 1930s USSR. And will take months for sanctions & loss of trading partners to bite; not sure Ukrainians have got that long.
As for supply chain, am not sure that Red Army had it easier versus Finland than Force Z has it versus Ukraine. Would take a detailed transport/logistics study to figure it out, but Finland was at the far end of a long tail, tightly circumscribed by geography, for example just one option, Murmansk railway, for 3/4 of the Finnish-Soviet border.
And while Putin's army is hardly a model of efficiency (to put it most mildly) it has NOT been torn apart by massive purge of it's officer corps and civil support, as was the case under Stalin. Can and is argued, that this actually helped Soviets beat Nazis in the long run. But short-term was a disaster, versus Finland in 1940 and a year later versus Barbarossa.
I seriously don’t think Russia has got months on the economic front, I would say at most weeks0 -
I think that's a very astute observation.MrEd said:One thing to consider on the whole ‘will Putin use nukes’ and that is the attitude of China. From a Chinese standpoint, it wouldn’t be great if Putin dropped a bomb not because they are concerned over the Ukraine but because it would almost certainly to a greater push by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to gain nuclear weapons. Ex-PM Abe in Japan is already pushing for his. So it might be China is acting as a brake here.
3 -
They aren't even The Brittas Empire.Leon said:My word. The women of Ukraine say "Russian warship, go fuck yourself"
It is utterly inconceivable that Russian can defeat these people street by street, barn by barn. The Ukrainians will be protecting their newly-sanctified homeland, already baptised with the blood of heroes, Russia's will be a blundering army of increasingly dispirited conscripts, who just want to go home to St Petersburg or Novosibirsk, wondering why they are still living in a pile of rubble near Kyiv. How often have we seen this pattern repeated?
https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1500879877741891589?s=20&t=i_Qebjfe5EAq4Toq1XSxug
The occupiers seldom win. The Romans managed it; Russia is not the Roman Empire2 -
You're correct on 1st point, and hope same is true re: 2nd.MrEd said:
True but Finland had a much smaller population and it wasn’t been shipped the level of weaponry Ukraine is getting. The Soviet Union at that stage also had a much greater populationSeaShantyIrish2 said:
Some there there in what you say, but not sure I concur with most points.MrEd said:
The huge difference from that war was that Russia was not being squeezed economically while it fought. Replacing equipment was also a lot easier, especially in tanks and planes.SeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
For example, methinks Russia is arguably in better shape - sanctions & all - economically in 2022 than in 1940, due in part to massive dislocations (to put it mildly) in 1930s USSR. And will take months for sanctions & loss of trading partners to bite; not sure Ukrainians have got that long.
As for supply chain, am not sure that Red Army had it easier versus Finland than Force Z has it versus Ukraine. Would take a detailed transport/logistics study to figure it out, but Finland was at the far end of a long tail, tightly circumscribed by geography, for example just one option, Murmansk railway, for 3/4 of the Finnish-Soviet border.
And while Putin's army is hardly a model of efficiency (to put it most mildly) it has NOT been torn apart by massive purge of it's officer corps and civil support, as was the case under Stalin. Can and is argued, that this actually helped Soviets beat Nazis in the long run. But short-term was a disaster, versus Finland in 1940 and a year later versus Barbarossa.
I seriously don’t think Russia has got months on the economic front, I would say at most weeks
0 -
We need to end the CTA. NowCarlottaVance said:Exc: Ministers have raised concerns about Ireland’s open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees, arguing it creates UK security risk.
Dublin joined EU-wide scheme welcoming refugees for 3 years, via which Ukrainians can travel to UK (Common Travel Area) without biometric checks
Govt source: “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine, which creates a problem due to the CTA.
“We've seen before with migrants from Albania that they hv come through Dublin, into Belfast & across to the mainland to L'pool. That's created a drug cartel route
Source adds: “It's the Home Office that will get the blame if in three or fives’ years time there are problems with those who come. That’s why the security checks have to be done carefully now.”
Ireland has said it expects to welcome more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/15009649372077957132 -
You're never short of a reaction.Leon said:
We need to end the CTA. NowCarlottaVance said:Exc: Ministers have raised concerns about Ireland’s open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees, arguing it creates UK security risk.
Dublin joined EU-wide scheme welcoming refugees for 3 years, via which Ukrainians can travel to UK (Common Travel Area) without biometric checks
Govt source: “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine, which creates a problem due to the CTA.
“We've seen before with migrants from Albania that they hv come through Dublin, into Belfast & across to the mainland to L'pool. That's created a drug cartel route
Source adds: “It's the Home Office that will get the blame if in three or fives’ years time there are problems with those who come. That’s why the security checks have to be done carefully now.”
Ireland has said it expects to welcome more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/15009649372077957131 -
I suspect Russia would find it very difficult to hold large parts of Eastern Ukraine effectively and for any length of time. Problem is that doesn't help Ukraine. Ukraine needs Russia to get outrcs1000 said:
I think Russia can certainly hold Eastern Ukraine, up to and probably including Kiev, as well as the cities and area nearest to the Crimea.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
But Lviv is a long way West. Google pegs it as 550km West of Kyiv, and close to the Polish border.
Occupying the whole country is a hell of a lot harder than just the Eastern half.0 -
It's not about fanboys. I cannot stand the man. I get triggered by it because it is so petty (eg referring to it as a stage name, when plenty of politicians went by second names, even if not solely, eg James Brown, Leonard Callaghan), it's insulting the intelligence of the public as if there is some inherent positive effect for him to do so, and it is deeply, deeply insecure to get so het up about some people (not all, mind you) calling him Boris.Mexicanpete said:
Wow you've triggered the fanbois.DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
"Boris" is essentially Mr Johnson's stage name. Family and friends call him Alexander or Al. Referring to him by his preferred stage name smacks of sychophancy. He is not our friend, we are simply gullible peasants, if he was our friend he would say "you can call me Al".
People complaining about it act like they are revealing a grand truth which the sheeple do not see, when most people rightly don't care what others call the man, they judge him as crap or not regardless. Focusing on his name as some kind of spell he casts imbues him with power he does not possess.2 -
That's not very accurate. The North Vietnamese army were only involved later on, and only dominated after 1968. Before that it was an indigenous insurrection in the South.HYUFD said:
Though Vietnam was originally fought by the USA to protect South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam invasion (much like the Korean War).Leon said:
Russia is absolutely not whipped, it is sunk. Like the USA in Vietnam. The parallel is eerie, and you should appreciate itSeaShantyIrish2 said:In 1940, Russians were losing the Winter War with Finland, very publicly.
Until they weren't, and Finns were forced to sue for peace.
Note that Finland had significant natural defenses versus Russia - vast forests, many lakes, tundra, narrow Karelian Isthmus, extremely limited transportation options - that Ukraine lacks. Plus Helsinki was NOT on the front line of battle.
So tad early in 2022 to say that Russians are whipped, this time around?
America poured billions into winning that Vietnam war, against a 3rd world opponent, yet it could not win because the people on the ground bitterly resisted any occupation - and that means by anyone, France, America, or China. Vietnam is a proudly independent country, as any visitor can attest. They REALLY hate China, by the way. Much more than the USA, despite the horrors of the war
Ukraine is now, surely, similarly disposed to Russia. For Ukrainians, Russia has gone from giant friendly neighbour (at best, for some) to evil bullying abuser (to all), in a week. It is now the hated enemy, and that must be a truth for decades to come
Russia has no hope of occupying and repressing a vast nation of 44m people who despise it, so Russia will only lose. The question is whether Russia loses fast, or slow, or with an outburst of H bombs
In this case it is Russia doing the invadingCarlottaVance said:Reporting across multiple sources:
#Russian general was liquidated near #Kharkiv
Major General Vitaly Gerasimov, who took part in the second #Chechen war, the war in #Syria and the annexation of #Crimea, was killed in battles near Kharkiv.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500952134937894912
Nephew of the Chief of the General Staff:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov
0 -
Yep that's what I get, however the south is a lot closer to Russian railway links, so the fabled 90km limit from the nearest supply hub extends a lot further in the south than the north.rcs1000 said:
The impression I have is that the Russians are moderately successful in the South, where they have professional troops, but that they are really struggling in the North where their attack on Kyiv is basically stalled.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.0 -
This is the most definitive source that I've so far found, a US-based academic project that I think can be relied upon to make an objective assessment, all in incredible detail day by day.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-7
eg. "It is too soon to gauge the likely effectiveness of any Russian attempt to complete the encirclement of Kyiv or to seize the city at this time. If Russian troops have been able to resupply, reorganize, and plan deliberate and coordinated simultaneous operations along the several axes of advance around and into the capital, they may be more successful in this operation than they have in previous undertakings. Operations near Kyiv in the past 72 hours have not offered enough evidence to evaluate that likelihood."
The outcome seems to hang on whether the expected renewed Russian offensives can restore some lost momentum to what are at the moment quite limited advances across fronts which are for the most part static now. Assuming a reasonable resupply effort and the fact that they are defending in depth with time on their side, I think the situation favours Ukraine, but even so it's surely still in the balance.
3 -
Because they were already stationed at the military base in Sevastopol.FrankBooth said:It's odd that if the Russians plan was to take Kiev and force a surrender why did they put their best forces in the south?
0 -
1/I am a member of the Ukrainian Parliament. My parents are now in Mariupol, in a district with 150,000 residents that was razed to the ground.
https://twitter.com/DmytroGurinMP/status/15007356422040862750 -
Just count yourself damn lucky you did not have to make the sacrifices your great grandparents and great great grandparents had to make in WW1 and WW2 when they were your age to give you the freedoms you enjoy today.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
You have never had to fight in a war and probably still will not have to even now0 -
Is Putin using the war in Ukraine to get rid of Generals who disagree with him, or are the Ukrainians getting good intelligence to feed into their 20,000 trained snipers?williamglenn said:The Russians have lost a second general.
Major General Vitaly Gerasimov, who took part in the second #Chechen war, the war in #Syria and the annexation of #Crimea, was killed in battles near Kharkiv.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/15009521349378949120 -
Yeah, but they could stop stuffing younger taxpayers in the UK at least!turbotubbs said:
I’m sorry you feel that way. The world of 2022, with smartphones that allow us to see the horror in Ukraine, but also connect us to our friends and family, the Covid vaccines that helped stop the pandemic from killing perhaps 3-5% of the worlds population, and all the other stuff - well ‘boomers’ helped make that world.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
0 -
The Irish demand proof of identity to enter Ireland in the CTA - their logic being that you have to prove your identity to demonstrate that you don’t have to show proof of identity to use the CTA.Leon said:
We need to end the CTA. NowCarlottaVance said:Exc: Ministers have raised concerns about Ireland’s open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees, arguing it creates UK security risk.
Dublin joined EU-wide scheme welcoming refugees for 3 years, via which Ukrainians can travel to UK (Common Travel Area) without biometric checks
Govt source: “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine, which creates a problem due to the CTA.
“We've seen before with migrants from Albania that they hv come through Dublin, into Belfast & across to the mainland to L'pool. That's created a drug cartel route
Source adds: “It's the Home Office that will get the blame if in three or fives’ years time there are problems with those who come. That’s why the security checks have to be done carefully now.”
Ireland has said it expects to welcome more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/15009649372077957131 -
How was WW1 and WW2 for you, HYUFD? Do tell us about your sacrifices. ..HYUFD said:
Just count yourself damn lucky you did not have to make the sacrifices your great grandparents and great great grandparents had to make in WW1 and WW2 when they were your age to give you the freedoms you enjoy today.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
You have never had to fight in a war and probably still will not have to even now2 -
The map here gives pretty good updates:Wulfrun_Phil said:
This is the most definitive source that I've so far found, a US-based academic project that I think can be relied upon to make an objective assessment, all in incredible detail day by day.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-7
eg. "It is too soon to gauge the likely effectiveness of any Russian attempt to complete the encirclement of Kyiv or to seize the city at this time. If Russian troops have been able to resupply, reorganize, and plan deliberate and coordinated simultaneous operations along the several axes of advance around and into the capital, they may be more successful in this operation than they have in previous undertakings. Operations near Kyiv in the past 72 hours have not offered enough evidence to evaluate that likelihood."
The outcome seems to hang on whether the expected renewed Russian offensives can restore some lost momentum to what are at the moment quite limited advances across fronts which are for the most part static now. Assuming a reasonable resupply effort and the fact that they are defending in depth with time on their side, I think the situation favours Ukraine, but even so it's surely still in the balance.
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/7-march-president-zelensky-decided-to-recall-ukrainian-peacekeepers
Those supply lines are pretty tenuous East of Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1500869156765327373?t=GF8s0BDWugs9MNDkHPE85w&s=190 -
We really do, tho. We have indulged the Irish for too long, out of a (justified) sense of guilt. We have more amortised the guilt. The Irish are free-loading on our defence spending even as they spit Anglophobic bile at us, for any reason possibleChameleon said:
You're never short of a reaction.Leon said:
We need to end the CTA. NowCarlottaVance said:Exc: Ministers have raised concerns about Ireland’s open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees, arguing it creates UK security risk.
Dublin joined EU-wide scheme welcoming refugees for 3 years, via which Ukrainians can travel to UK (Common Travel Area) without biometric checks
Govt source: “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine, which creates a problem due to the CTA.
“We've seen before with migrants from Albania that they hv come through Dublin, into Belfast & across to the mainland to L'pool. That's created a drug cartel route
Source adds: “It's the Home Office that will get the blame if in three or fives’ years time there are problems with those who come. That’s why the security checks have to be done carefully now.”
Ireland has said it expects to welcome more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1500964937207795713
Due to their parasitic tax policies they are now some of the richest people on earth, at least theoretically. Enough special pleading from them. Let us treat them - fairly - like other EU citizens. Show your passport, no Free Movement, pay your fucking dues to NATO
And no more Albanian gangsters in Liverpool, thanks0 -
Note that in case of Theodore Roosevelt number of his friends & family who called him "Teddy" was zero. And he personally disliked it.Mexicanpete said:
Wow you've triggered the fanbois.DougSeal said:
Why would we be part of the EU’s defence planning? We left. Would we expect the EU to be part of the UK’s defence planning? Rocking up to discuss budgets etc in Whitehall? The ERG would do their nut. We’re not in the EU, they’re not in the U.K. Farcical thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Even tonight Boris has been in a conference with Biden - Macron and Scholz
And I wish people (well, you and HYUFD mostly) would stop making Johnson the only person in politics who gets called by a familiar name other than his surname. It’s “Johnson, Biden, Macron and Scholz” or “Boris, Joe, Emmanuel and Olaf”. You can’t have it both ways.
"Boris" is essentially Mr Johnson's stage name. Family and friends call him Alexander or Al. Referring to him by his preferred stage name smacks of sychophancy. He is not our friend, we are simply gullible peasants, if he was our friend he would say "you can call me Al".
HOWEVER, he NEVER told ANY voter to cut it out. Strange but true!
BTW, after he left the White House in 1909, he instructed the press to refer to him as "Colonel Roosevelt". On grounds that he did not want to take limelight away from sitting POTUS, in this case his hand-picked successor. Though he kept it up even after his bust-up with Taft.
Why? Because TR (as he was also called, and which was the inspiration for "FDR") believed that being called Col. Roosevelt ENHANCED his stature. Every knew that he'd been President in very-recent past. And it reminded them he was also the intrepid Hero of San Juan Hill.1 -
I think that's right. While many denizens of PB and Twitter luxuriate in pontificating about who is 'winning', thousands of people are being killed on both sides; although Putin is to blame, that's no consolation for the dead or their families.geoffw said:
There are no winners. Both sides have lost. But only one side is culpable.FF43 said:
Problem is that Russia losing isn't a synonym for Ukraine winning. I do want Russia to lose, to ensure there's a high price for invading countries, but I care about Ukraine, not Russia.Chameleon said:
Russia is still gaining ground. While a Russian victory is no longer inevitable, it is still very possible that Russia throws enough men and machines in to gum up the machinery. I'd like to see some armed Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied cities before throwing a 'Russia can't win' party.Leon said:
Yes, I agree, Russia is clearly losing, and all the hi-tech missiles that quietly became yachts are partly to blamerottenborough said:
As it stands at moment the longer this goes on the more that Putin is revealing that is superpower war machine is in fact a losing mess of drunks, incompetent conscripts crying for mum, useless officers and corrupt quartermasters. They can't even turn up to Kwick Fit once a year for a proper tyre change.Leon said:Again, who pays?
If Russia was agreeing to rebuild Kharkiv (and a thousand other towns) then maybe. They are not. Everyone will be skint after this
And, Ukrainians sense they are winning. It maybe somewhat delusional, born of social media, but there is a definite sense they are not only stalling the Evil Russians, they are pushing them back. Heroically
Do you sue for peace in that situation? I can't see it. Yes it is arguably logical - if you want to save your remaining towns - but Putin has pushed Ukraine far beyond cold logic. For them, this is surely existential, now. Russians are Nazis, who must lose. Both sides therefore need a "win" and that is a bad place for us all
The maps he has on his massive desk are all lies. All the generals have been lying to him for years.
No way Russia does anything but lose, from here. Question is, does it lose alone, and if so, how badly? Or will the mad-hound Putin successfully launch a few nukes to save his "legacy"?
Let's be honest - nobody really has a clue who's 'winning' (although Ukraine are winning the propaganda war, at least outside Russia), but the odds favour Russia. For the people of Ukraine, a ceasefire would be helpful. That's not appeasement - it's trying to find a solution to save lives. More talking and less bombing should be the order of the day. Those who wish to just carry on warring from the comfort of their armchairs are just condemning thousands more people to death. In the end, some sort of diplomatic solution is inevitable; the sooner it comes, the quicker the pointless loss of lives can end.1
