In Other News …. – politicalbetting.com

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

More grisly photos out of Hong Kong. A reminder of what Omicron can do

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10619301/Morgues-overflow-bodies-Hong-Kong-deadly-Covid-wave-hits.html

Hong Kong has one of the most stringent anti-Covid regimes in the world. 21 day compulsory quarantine, etc

Yet still, pointless: Covid has run amok.

Their cases have now peaked. But the dead will pile up for a while

Hong Kong had/has the HIGHEST peak death rate of any country since Covid began I believe.

And where HK goes, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Shanghai follow.

Indeed. Hong Kong has been registering a Case Fatality Rate of 5%. 1 in 20 cases dying - the unvaxxed old

China may avoid this fate, they are surging booster shots across the country, might be just in time. South Korea seems to be dodging the bullet: eg today they report 400,000 cases - huge numbers - but "only" 164 deaths.

If S Korea had the CFR of HK they would be reporting 20,000 deaths a day

South Korea has administered at least 120,028,530 doses of COVID vaccines so far. Assuming every person needs 2 doses, that’s enough to have vaccinated about 116.1% of the country’s population.

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/south-korea/

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

COVID Summary

- Cases - UP. R is crawling up a bit. Currently 1.35 or so.
- In hospital - UP
- MV Beds - Flat(ish)
- Admissions - UP. R has stabilised at 1.1
- Deaths - DOWN. Falling very slowly now.

Won't deaths & MV beds (being lagging indicators) reflect what was happening with infections 10-14 days ago?

rottenborough said:

Has Putin just turned on the billionaires and the oligarchs?

He seems to have made a speech saying people who can't get by without a villa in France and oysters and so on are basically not Russian and exist in their heads "somewhere else".

LostPassword said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Well, would it be for the greater good?

What does normalising the annexations gain you over disputing them, but not actively pursuing military means to regain them? And, would it necessarily be so bad if Ukraine were to regain them militarily at some point int he future, as Croatia did with those parts of Croatia that had been occupied by the Serbs?

boulay said:

rottenborough said:

Has Putin just turned on the billionaires and the oligarchs?

He seems to have made a speech saying people who can't get by without a villa in France and oysters and so on are basically not Russian and exist in their heads "somewhere else".

Citizens of nowhere…..

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
France, Harris Interactive poll:

Presidential election (among 18-24 year olds)

Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 24%
Le Pen (RN-ID): 23%
Macron (EC-RE): 21%
Zemmour (REC-NI): 8%
Jadot (PE-G/EFA): 7%"

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1504123446543982597

Just as well elections are not restricted to 18 to 24 year olds here or in France, otherwise Corbyn would now be UK PM and France's presidential election would be a runoff between Melenchon on the far left and Le Pen on the far right

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

I remember suggesting that to my father at the time. I will never forget the look of love and sympathy as he said to me, his adored six year old son “don’t worry my boy, one day you will grow up and with age will come wisdom”.

Gardenwalker said:

FrankBooth said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

At the moment what are the Ukrainians offering?

No Nato membership or foreign military bases. That seems a decent offer but could Putin really sell that as a win?

Presumably they are yielding Crimea forever, and maybe the separatist bits in the East?

Which is not unjustifiable. Crimea is more "Russian" than "Ukrainian"

From my perspective it certainly is unjustifiable. Crimea has been Ukrainian since 1954. It voted to leave the Soviet Union. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for a commitment by the US/UK/Russia to respect its territorial integrity. It's territory has been taken by force and its citizens held hostage by a terrorist state. A referendum on its future could be held with proper international oversight.

Now maybe 'realism' suggests you sometimes have to appease terror and violence. But that's what it would be.

A plebiscite in Crimea - which would be assumed to be won by pro-Russians - is perhaps the fig leaf we need to overlook the sordid nature of its annexation by Russia.

NorthofStoke said:

Gardenwalker said:

FrankBooth said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

At the moment what are the Ukrainians offering?

No Nato membership or foreign military bases. That seems a decent offer but could Putin really sell that as a win?

Presumably they are yielding Crimea forever, and maybe the separatist bits in the East?

Which is not unjustifiable. Crimea is more "Russian" than "Ukrainian"

From my perspective it certainly is unjustifiable. Crimea has been Ukrainian since 1954. It voted to leave the Soviet Union. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for a commitment by the US/UK/Russia to respect its territorial integrity. It's territory has been taken by force and its citizens held hostage by a terrorist state. A referendum on its future could be held with proper international oversight.

Now maybe 'realism' suggests you sometimes have to appease terror and violence. But that's what it would be.

A plebiscite in Crimea - which would be assumed to be won by pro-Russians - is perhaps the fig leaf we need to overlook the sordid nature of its annexation by Russia.

Danger of feeding and emboldening the monster though. Not an easy call. My instinct is to increase support to Ukraine to the max short of military intervention and call bluff on warnings from Moscow, combined with maximum sanctions on Russia to be eased only slightly at each stage of their withdrawal.

Gardenwalker said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

You’re right.

The defenestration of Putin is not a sensible goal because it cannot guaranteed.

However the withdrawal of Russia, and some form of protection from future aggressions, must be.

rottenborough said:

Could it all unravel for Putin??



Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
·
3h
At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.

https://twitter.com/LawDavF

Andy_JS said:

Anyone know why elderly people in Hong Kong didn't get vaccinated in large numbers?

Leon said:

No idea if this is true, but...


Судя по перехватам разговоров российских военных – массовые бунты и отказы воевать против Украины. Целыми батальонами идут в отказ. Путин теряет власть даже у военных.

Judging by the intercepts of Russian military conversations, there are mass riots and refusals to fight against Ukraine. Whole battalions go into denial. Putin is losing power even among the military.


https://twitter.com/n_ma_pag/status/1504143823189987344?s=20&t=T4fLhweVijdKyHKCdxrGpw

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

Cicero said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.

Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself

We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage

I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.

Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.

IshmaelZ said:

https://theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/16/dominic-cummings-accuses-boris-johnson-of-lying-in-lebedev-row

HYUFD said:

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

I remember suggesting that to my father at the time. I will never forget the look of love and sympathy as he said to me, his adored six year old son “don’t worry my boy, one day you will grow up and with age will come wisdom”.

It was what Kruschev did in Cuba, only the Argentines unlike JFK's US would not have had any nuclear weapons to respond with

boulay said:

JohnLilburne said:

Gardenwalker said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

You’re right.

The defenestration of Putin is not a sensible goal because it cannot guaranteed.

However the withdrawal of Russia, and some form of protection from future aggressions, must be.

We could invite him to talks and make sure he is standing next to an open window. Better not have them in Prague though, as he may get suspicious

He wouldn’t worry about being defenestrated in Prague as on historical precedent he would be fine as none of the intended victims died as they landed on piles of garbage (I think).

I’m thinking Singapore, by the pool in the Marina Bay.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

I remember suggesting that to my father at the time. I will never forget the look of love and sympathy as he said to me, his adored six year old son “don’t worry my boy, one day you will grow up and with age will come wisdom”.

It was what Kruschev did in Cuba, only the Argentines unlike JFK's US would not have had any nuclear weapons to respond with

Krushchev pulled missiles out of Cuba only because JFK pulled missiles out of Turkey, a quid pro quo nobody really remembers these days.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

I get ineffective, I even get dangerous. But where the hell do you get vindictive from? This fucker is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people - both Russians and Ukrainians. I think wanting him out of power and preferably strung up by the balls - even if counter productive and so not desirable for securing peace - is anything but vindictive.

Shit, I meant vindictive as against the ordinary Russian people who will bear the brunt of punitive sanctions. Nothing could be too bad for Putin.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

boulay said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

I remember suggesting that to my father at the time. I will never forget the look of love and sympathy as he said to me, his adored six year old son “don’t worry my boy, one day you will grow up and with age will come wisdom”.

It was what Kruschev did in Cuba, only the Argentines unlike JFK's US would not have had any nuclear weapons to respond with

Krushchev pulled missiles out of Cuba only because JFK pulled missiles out of Turkey, a quid pro quo nobody really remembers these days.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rottenborough said:

Could it all unravel for Putin??



Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
·
3h
At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.

https://twitter.com/LawDavF

Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.

Flatlander said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew

Nuclear blackmail? Yes, good strategy. I'm sure no other countries would have objected.

Leon said:

This is a dangerously unhinged tyrant, talking like Late Stage Hitler, with a weird sigh in the middle. We need to approach with extreme caution


"I have translated and added subtitles to the latest video speech by Vladimir Putin from two hours ago. Please don’t let it go in vain - I want everyone to see what a speech of true fascism looks like.

No further comment needed, it’s all here, in his speech"

https://twitter.com/just_whatever/status/1504144895501557762?s=20&t=T4fLhweVijdKyHKCdxrGpw

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.

Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself

We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage

JohnLilburne said:

boulay said:

JohnLilburne said:

Gardenwalker said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

You’re right.

The defenestration of Putin is not a sensible goal because it cannot guaranteed.

However the withdrawal of Russia, and some form of protection from future aggressions, must be.

We could invite him to talks and make sure he is standing next to an open window. Better not have them in Prague though, as he may get suspicious

He wouldn’t worry about being defenestrated in Prague as on historical precedent he would be fine as none of the intended victims died as they landed on piles of garbage (I think).

I’m thinking Singapore, by the pool in the Marina Bay.

The First Defenestration was more deadly. As was Jan Masaryk's (assuming he was murdered by the Russians).

Aslan said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.

Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself

We don't need to punish Russia further. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage

What is important is that Ukraine is safer after 15 years of Russian recovery than it was in 2014. That means EU membership, no Russian Crimea and security guarantees from the West.

HYUFD said:

Aslan said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rottenborough said:

Could it all unravel for Putin??



Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
·
3h
At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.

https://twitter.com/LawDavF

Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.

However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO

Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.

Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians

Taz said:

JohnLilburne said:

boulay said:

JohnLilburne said:

Gardenwalker said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

Omnium said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Donbas is the key.

Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?

Dead Putin is the key.

Sadly, not on the negotiating table.

Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.

Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have

You’re right.

The defenestration of Putin is not a sensible goal because it cannot guaranteed.

However the withdrawal of Russia, and some form of protection from future aggressions, must be.

We could invite him to talks and make sure he is standing next to an open window. Better not have them in Prague though, as he may get suspicious

He wouldn’t worry about being defenestrated in Prague as on historical precedent he would be fine as none of the intended victims died as they landed on piles of garbage (I think).

I’m thinking Singapore, by the pool in the Marina Bay.

The First Defenestration was more deadly. As was Jan Masaryk's (assuming he was murdered by the Russians).

Always smile at this one

https://youtu.be/4S7QARslq74

mwadams said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.

The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible

Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost

And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.

But hey ho just a cake walk.

Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.

None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.

Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game

Biden has openly told the world tonight he and the allies are arming Ukraine with sophisticated equipment immediately and taking supplies from stock to ensure Ukraine is able to attack Russian army in Ukraine.

The weapons included those that Ukraine can enact as a de facto no fly zone

Seems to me this open defiance of Putin and challenging him directly

Those little Switchblade sacrificial drone/missiles would seem to be exactly what is needed for this next phase of the conflict. Fit in a rucksack and simple to operate.