Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Measures more than sanctions are going to be needed to stop Putin – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited April 2022 in General
imageMeasures more than sanctions are going to be needed to stop Putin – politicalbetting.com

The sheer awfulness of what has been going on in Ukraine over the past few days suggests, surely, that measures beyond the existing sanctions and sending military aid are going to be needed to stop Putin.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51
    Thanks Mike you clearly have been reading the discussion today. There is no easy answer...personally I prefer giving putin an off ramp to escalating towards ww3 but others will differ
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,047
    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51
    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771
    "Giving Putin an offramp" is a disgusting phrase. Yes we all get the point that is being dressed up as assessment of practical realities (which does nothing to disguise its actual intent), but it still boils down to 'less resistance the better, as that gives him an out'.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51

    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.

    Surely that will.just cut our nose off to spite our face
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    FPT
    DavidL said:

    Fishing said:

    A pretty strong condemnation of France and Germany from Zelensky:

    @mrsorokaa
    ⚡️ “I invite Merkel and Sarkozy to visit Bucha and to see the outcome of 14 years of concessions to Russia,” Zelensky said in his video address.

    “You will see with your own eyes the tortured Ukrainians.”


    https://twitter.com/mrsorokaa/status/1510691944938283009

    Can anybody think why he didn't invite Boris, Cameron or May as well?

    Must have slipped his mind.

    Either that or "Londongrad" and Lord Lebedev and whatever is pretty irrelevant compared to supplying weapons and training troops.
    I have read in a few places that the UK has become the unofficial coordinator of all external military support for Ukraine, focussing on what each country can most usefully give to fill a hole. It appears, somewhat uncharacteristically, we are the good guys for once. It makes a nice change.
    How is that remotely uncharacteristic? We have a proud if not unblemished record of standing up to tyrannies and spreading democracy, from the Falklands to Kuwait to Sierra Leone to former Yugoslavia to most of Western Europe going further back.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    PaulD said:

    Thanks Mike you clearly have been reading the discussion today. There is no easy answer...personally I prefer giving putin an off ramp to escalating towards ww3 but others will differ

    He's got one. He fucks off into the sunset and takes his murdergrunts and trolls with him.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame.
    We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia.
    Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons.
    I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    PaulD said:

    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.

    Surely that will.just cut our nose off to spite our face
    Yes, you're right. We should buy MORE gas and oil from Russia. That'll show them, the bastards.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581
    My own surmise, is that President Biden already knew - based on US/NATO/UKR intelligence - that these headlines were coming, that atrocities were happening with more coming.

    Partly by deliberate design, and partly from lack of effective command & control. Paradox like the CoE?

    No gaffe calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal, along with his willing henchpeople.

    Instead, warning and indictment.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
    STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51

    PaulD said:

    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.

    Surely that will.just cut our nose off to spite our face
    Yes, you're right. We should buy MORE gas and oil from Russia. That'll show them, the bastards.
    Well do you really want your energy bills to soar even more....most people wont
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return

    That can be Putin's win.
    Indeed but totally unrealistic
    Be honest: six weeks ago, did you think it was realistic that Putin's troops would have been driven out of Kyiv and Chernihiv and Zelensky would still be in power?
    There's going to be a lot of pivoting to claiming those were never part of the goal.

    Which one would think would be distressing to the hundreds to thousands of Russian families who have lost family members attacking those places.

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?
    I think we can all read between the lines with this wellworn approach, but it never ceases to surprise to see it reworked as some noble and compassionate concern.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    DavidL said:

    We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame.
    We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia.
    Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons.
    I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.

    But we sure did kill a lot of Iraqis, so hey, there's that.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    Not sure there is a win for us here.
    Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight.
    Crack down on Russia. And their apologists.
    Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also.
    Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues.
    There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    "the Russian tyrant had factored in the current sanctions regime"

    Everything I have read from analysts says that actually the Kremlin have been taken aback as to the level of sanctions.

    Don't forget in Putin's head the west is declining due to decadence and hedonism and lack of faith in the orthodox god. So he would have been surprised when we actually got our shit together.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame.
    We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia.
    Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons.
    I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.

    But we sure did kill a lot of Iraqis, so hey, there's that.
    And Afghans, don't forget. And our contribution to Libya has not been entirely positive either. And we turn a blind eye to genocide in China too.

    The world is not ours to fix, which is probably just as well.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51
    dixiedean said:

    Not sure there is a win for us here.
    Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight.
    Crack down on Russia. And their apologists.
    Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also.
    Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues.
    There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.

    There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060

    Don't feed the trolls.....

    Their the misuse of punctuation and the lack of capital letters gives away so much...
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    edited April 2022
    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
    STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
    Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.

  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    "the Russian tyrant had factored in the current sanctions regime"

    Everything I have read from analysts says that actually the Kremlin have been taken aback as to the level of sanctions.

    Don't forget in Putin's head the west is declining due to decadence and hedonism and lack of faith in the orthodox god. So he would have been surprised when we actually got our shit together.

    The "Putin has factored in the sanctions" line goes back way into February:
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/russia-ukraine-most-senseless-war-nato-history/
    It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. In between then and now, though... it wasn't true.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247

    My own surmise, is that President Biden already knew - based on US/NATO/UKR intelligence - that these headlines were coming, that atrocities were happening with more coming.

    Partly by deliberate design, and partly from lack of effective command & control. Paradox like the CoE?

    No gaffe calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal, along with his willing henchpeople.

    Instead, warning and indictment.

    Personally, I don't see it as a gaffe. Put the Kremlin back on their toes I reckon.

  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51
    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    An excellent post...the Russians will dig in and it will be carnage sadly
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    Places like Hinkley Point and Sizewell I assume.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    PaulD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure there is a win for us here.
    Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight.
    Crack down on Russia. And their apologists.
    Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also.
    Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues.
    There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.

    There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
    Indeed.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247

    Don't feed the trolls.....

    Certainly not with McDonalds as they can no longer get hold of the burgers in Moscow.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
    STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
    Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.

    In my excitement I misspelled "misusing", which slightly spoiled the effect.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Surprised Russian bot farm don't just use GPT-3....throws hand grenade and runs away.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    PaulD said:

    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.

    Surely that will.just cut our nose off to spite our face
    Are you sure you mean "our" there?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    edited April 2022
    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,970
    PaulD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure there is a win for us here.
    Keep supporting Ukraine for the length of time they have the will to fight.
    Crack down on Russia. And their apologists.
    Try to increase the West's supply of energy. And, crucially, reduce our demand also.
    Avoid taking Putin's talking points seriously. And resist the very real temptation to use them as domestic wedge issues.
    There's not much more we can sensibly do. The government is doing some of them well. Others not so.

    There is no good solution...all involve pain and some sadly involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians
    Indeed.

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    Places like Hinkley Point and Sizewell I assume.
    We shall see. It sounds like a great plan to announce.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581
    My friends, if THIS is hell-is-cyber-war Armageddon we were led to expect from Mother-Fucker Russia, well, I for one am willing & able to take it like a PBer!
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Surprised Russian bot farm don't just use GPT-3....throws hand grenade and runs away.

    They tried, but a Ukrainian farmer towed it away.
    Now they're left with PJohnson PaulD and anything else they find snuffling around in the barn.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425
    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425
    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
    STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
    Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.

    Perhaps we could set up a fund for bot betterment?

    Out of the surplus accumulated by PB Fund for Hapless Punters and Indigent (and Indignant) Psephologists.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    Anyway, it's a school night so goodnight all.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,091
    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
    Thanks, I was felling a bit depressed, hope you are right.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
    Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    What's the degree-of-difficulty to get a nuke plant built with a massive windfarm on the roof of it?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    https://twitter.com/billneelyreport/status/1510662123986243591?s=21&t=HfXoiZj50UnWa3pV0A-N2g

    Not easy viewing.

    I think we are going to have to send Ukraine the sort of weapons it needs to push the Russians out of the country ie not simply defensive weapons.

    How that can be done and what the risks are I do not pretend to know.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,269
    DavidL said:

    We averted our eyes in Rwanda for too long to our shame.
    We came damn close to doing so in the former Yugoslavia.
    Thanks to Ed Miliband we wimped out in Syria and allowed the use of chemical weapons.
    I suppose we can do it again but it is going to be hard to live with.

    We are providing a lot of weapons and other support to Ukraine, so this is the most that we've done with the exception of Kosovo.

    I do think it's not tenable to continue to buy anything from Russia. This will cause some difficulty, but temporary gas and diesel rationing is not much to endure compared to Ukraine's suffering.

    Part of me dearly wants to see NATO (or even just the British and the Poles) ride to the rescue, and bring this to as rapid an end as possible. Hopefully the Ukrainians will do it themselves and we will provide all the equipment they need.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
    not as many, the Ukrainians will certainly be able to deeply some units elsewhere, just that they cant with dower all of them and leve the road to the capital open again, however the Russians probably know that Ukraine will not cross the boarder and start occupying Russia, so can redeploy almost every man and tank that is not dead.

    again, hope im wrong and miss reading this.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51

    Anyway, it's a school night so goodnight all.

    Hope we have educated each other a bit
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,247
    PaulD said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
    Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
    Or on the other hand, Austerlitz.
  • Options
    PaulDPaulD Posts: 51
    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/billneelyreport/status/1510662123986243591?s=21&t=HfXoiZj50UnWa3pV0A-N2g

    Not easy viewing.

    I think we are going to have to send Ukraine the sort of weapons it needs to push the Russians out of the country ie not simply defensive weapons.

    How that can be done and what the risks are I do not pretend to know.

    Isn't that just ww3 by proxy
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,091
    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Why do you think Ukraine will need as many units in the north after the Russian army there has been destroyed as it needed when it was actually fighting those Russian units ?
    not as many, the Ukrainians will certainly be able to deeply some units elsewhere, just that they cant with dower all of them and leve the road to the capital open again, however the Russians probably know that Ukraine will not cross the boarder and start occupying Russia, so can redeploy almost every man and tank that is not dead.

    again, hope im wrong and miss reading this.
    The Kyiv area will likely become low intensity which can be guarded by units withdrawn from elsewhere for refitting.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425
    PaulD said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
    Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
    If the Russians want to put their tiny dicks in a meat grinder.

    I say turn the handle.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,269
    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
    Around Kyiv the expectation was that the Russians would dig in so that they could continue to bombard the capital with artillery and keep a large part of the Ukrainian army occupied.

    I think it's very notable that the Russians decided they weren't able to do that. I take that as a Russian admission of the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.

    The fight in the Donbas will be hard, but I have hope for a Ukrainian victory.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    PaulD said:

    Anyway, it's a school night so goodnight all.

    Hope we have educated each other a bit
    Judging by the continued state of your grammar, I doubt it.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    edited April 2022

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581

    PaulD said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    Yes, I think the Russians will try and make it a fight about the South and East where they are closer to their supply bases.
    Yes that will be the war if attrition...it could end up like the battle of the somme...long and bloody
    Or on the other hand, Austerlitz.
    Or Waterloo
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771
    Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?

    I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?

    Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.

    And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time
    .
    https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.
    Around Kyiv the expectation was that the Russians would dig in so that they could continue to bombard the capital with artillery and keep a large part of the Ukrainian army occupied.

    I think it's very notable that the Russians decided they weren't able to do that. I take that as a Russian admission of the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.

    The fight in the Donbas will be hard, but I have hope for a Ukrainian victory.
    I hope you are right,

    but, in the north, particular the north east, there where lots of places surrounded but not captured by the Russians, the biggest being being the city of Sumi the Russians found they did not have the manpower to capture these and instead had lots of ambushes and big supply problems and no way of solving them, so there position was binging untenable. this is not really the case in the south and east. apart from Mariupol there are few pockets of Ukraine resistance, where ambush teams can be based. and so on.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Russian confirmed losses now 2,394, of which tanks: 410, of which destroyed: 194, damaged: 6, abandoned: 42, captured: 168.

    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html


  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775


    If the Russians want to put their tiny dicks in a meat grinder.

    I say turn the handle.

    Too late, it's already in there and it's Russia turning the handle

    Russian confirmed losses now 2,394, of which tanks: 410, of which destroyed: 194, damaged: 6, abandoned: 42, captured: 168.

    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html


  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
    Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.

    Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425
    kle4 said:

    Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?

    I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?

    Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.

    And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time
    .
    https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041

    Something on the lines of this, I suspect


    When you've shouted "Rule Britannia,"
    When you've sung "God save the Queen,"
    When you've finished killing Kruger with your mouth,
    Will you kindly drop a shilling in my little tambourine
    For a gentleman in khaki ordered South?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771
    Such devastation, from what the Russians claim was not even an objective. I wish I believed in a just world where everyone got comeuppance, it would provide more hope.

    Our latest report from Hostomel and Bucha, towns NW of Kyiv, after the Russians left. Shot and edited by @leedurant prod @producerkathy

    https://twitter.com/BowenBBC/status/1510525340078252033
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    kle4 said:

    Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?

    I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?

    Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.

    And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time
    .
    https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041

    There was a proposal before the war to change the lyrics of the national anthem from "Ще не вмерла України" - "Ukraine has not yet perished" to "Процвітає України" - "Let Ukraine bloom" to make it more positive, but the new text also implies accepting Crimea has gone, so Zelensky is just knocking it on the head. Ukrainian people don't want to change the text.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    kle4 said:

    Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?

    I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?

    Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.

    And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time
    .
    https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041

    I don't know, but wonder if somebody has come up with a new verse of the national anthem possibly with a line 'the Russians are all smelly idiots' such a line might be very popular at the moment, but its not going to look good oversees or make it easier to have a peace treaty. so unhelpful even if popular.
  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Please could we also agree where to site the high level nuclear waste storage facility that we have needed for 40+ years? It will need to be deep enough underground to survive a couple of ice ages.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771

    russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.

    that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.


    https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736

    I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    kle4 said:

    russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.

    that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.


    https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736

    I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
    It even has diagrams:

    https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510207703037235208
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,269
    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    JACK_W said:

    PaulD said:

    Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid

    Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.

    Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.

    Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
    Fixed it for you.

    And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
    Please debate intelligently...thankyou
    OK

    Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
    I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
    It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.

    So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:

    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
    If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
    Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.

    Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
    I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.

    So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.

    However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.

    I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly. short of that, and I fear Putin will win, pleas tell me I'm wrong.

    It may be that the biggest battle we have seen to date is the battle at Trostanyets where the Russian 4th Guards seem to have got a real thumping. I would not underestimate Ukraine's capacity for offensive action.
    Ukrainians win Battle of Trostyanets on March 26th.

    Russia announces it is scaling back offensive on Kyiv and Chernihiv on March 29th.

    I think those two events are connected.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581

    kle4 said:

    Understandably other bits of the uploaded speeches will be of more interest internationally, but I wonder what this part from Zelensky is about?

    I would also like to say a few words to those politicians, some deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine who absolutely do not understand what is happening in the hearts of our people. They don't understand it so much that they even decided to change the national anthem. I have a question for these people: what have you done in your life to give you the moral right to change the words of the anthem? Are you outstanding poets? Maybe you excelled in the battles for Ukraine? Or now is such a time that you can change the anthem whenever you want?

    Cool down emotions. Stop pretending to be fools. I believe that the authors of these and other similar bills, proposals, should take up arms and go to the battlefield, if you have these opportunities. Only there will you understand something.

    And even if they accidentally vote for something like this, I still will not sign such bills. Don't waste time
    .
    https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/robit-use-sho-mozhete-shob-mi-razom-vistoyali-v-cij-vijni-za-74041

    There was a proposal before the war to change the lyrics of the national anthem from "Ще не вмерла України" - "Ukraine has not yet perished" to "Процвітає України" - "Let Ukraine bloom" to make it more positive, but the new text also implies accepting Crimea has gone, so Zelensky is just knocking it on the head. Ukrainian people don't want to change the text.
    Star Spangled Banner is US national anthem NOT because people like it as a tune or a song; majority does not.

    Rather, because it was written during & immediately after the bombardment of Baltimore in 1814.

    It was there, born from the fires of war. That it's bad music and indifferent poesy, not very important.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    edited April 2022

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
    Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.

    Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
    image
    .👍🏻.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,581

    kle4 said:

    russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.

    that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.


    https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736

    I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
    It even has diagrams:

    https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510207703037235208
    Sadly a subject with which the world has gained a lot of expertise in past century plus.

    BTW, thank you, williamglenn, for Ukrainian info & insights, most cogent & timely putting it VERY mildly.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    Thoughtful of the Russians to build the Ukrainians a mass grave before they left:

    April 3 (Reuters) - Satellite images show a 45-foot-longtrench dug into the grounds of a Ukrainian church where a mass grave was found this week after Russian forces withdrew from the town of Bucha, a private U.S. company said on Sunday.

    Reuters journalists who visited Bucha on Saturday saw bodies lying on the streets of the town, 37 km (23 miles) northwest of the capital Kyiv. A mass grave at one church was still open, with hands and feet poking through the red clay heaped on top.


    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/satellite-images-show-45-foot-long-trench-grave-site-bucha-maxar-2022-04-03/?
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    I completely agree with the header. The time has come to start supplying tanks and fighter planes to Ukraine. We also need to cut every Russian bank out of SWIFT.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,771
    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    kle4 said:

    russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.

    that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.


    https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736

    I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
    That's because you are part of civilized society and not KGB human filth.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,425

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
    Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.

    Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
    image
    .👍🏻.
    I'm not sure about that reactor design - the biological shield looks a bit flimsy, where is the moderator, cooling system, controls rods and the really, really important bit?

    The kettle for the the operators to make their tea.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Farooq said:


    If the Russians want to put their tiny dicks in a meat grinder.

    I say turn the handle.

    Too late, it's already in there and it's Russia turning the handle

    Russian confirmed losses now 2,394, of which tanks: 410, of which destroyed: 194, damaged: 6, abandoned: 42, captured: 168.

    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html


    Given Putin has now confirmed himself as the new Stalin, we need to ignore the Russian sympathizers psiren calls for "giving him an out". No, we must ramp up sanctions and Ukrainian armaments, and keep fighting until Russia fully retreats from or Ukrainian territory or bleeds out.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited April 2022
    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited April 2022
    Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....

    We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/peaky-blinders-finale-review-dreary-slog-boom-twist-saved/
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited April 2022

    PaulD said:

    PaulD said:

    Also bear in mind putin might have planned these atrocities deliberately to drag the west in and increase his popularity

    So you think he is deliberately setting up atrocities and you still want to reward him?

    I think there is no point continuing to argue with you.
    No I don't want to reward him...but putin might see it as in his interests for the war to expand....he gets to play the hero back home against western aggression
    STOP MISSUSING ELLIPSES!
    Not sure our resident trolls are paid enough roubles to get punctuation entirely correct.

    OTOH his use of definite and indefinite articles seems okay: that’s the usual tell of a Slavic speaker without a very fluent grasp of English as Slavic languages don’t use them.

    As to ellipses, I couldn’t get more than a chapter into John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World as he used them where everyone else would use full stops.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
    Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
    Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.

    Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
    image
    .👍🏻.
    The salesman has promised me it will hold 10 mini-nukes.....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
    Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
    I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    As a Russian, your odds of surviving for five weeks in a tracked vehicle in Ukraine must be up there with the odds of surviving in a WW2 German U-boat.

    "In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats, of which 785 were destroyed"
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416

    dixiedean said:

    7 new nuclear power plants? Where? In places where folk lose their shit over a windmill?
    And in how many decades?

    The mini-nukes are fairly small. The existing nuclear plants have huge areas of land around them. The obvious idea has always been to site them on the exiting nuclear plant locations.
    Unit price of that first mini-nuke please? Life span? Down time? Novel engineering elements? Source of parts? Fuel? Abandonment cost? Planning consent required? Minimum electricity price required? Total taxpayer/customer subsisdy required per life of unit?
    Not sure why you think I know any of those - just pointing out that the previously siting on existing nuclear power station sites has been considered.
    Point is, NOBODY knows any of these. Certainly not those advocating them.

    Take every worst case scenario on each parameter though.
    image
    .👍🏻.
    The salesman has promised me it will hold 10 mini-nukes.....
    Vote Mark, Go Green.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
    Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
    I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
    Crew Resource Management was a problem for all airlines for decades (and still is in some parts of the world). There were lots of incidents of captains overruling first officers who were correct (often with disastrous results) in western airlines too, especially if the captain was a WW2 veteran and didn’t want to hear it if the first officer was still in nappies when the captain was giving Hitler a blood nose.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    One thing that has been repeated about Russian military doctrine, there isn't really any "middle management" as there are in the UK or US. The orders come from the top and they follow them. They will literally sit there doing nothing until told to do otherwise, there isn't any freelancing decisions taken by officer class on the ground.
    Which is something the Ukrainians reformed in their armed forces, much to their advantage. It’s hard to see Russia being able to follow suit though.
    I remember reading about Korean Air having to retrain the whole organisation for a similar reason. Cultural norms dictated that one didn't directly challenge a superior and so they had a very bad safety record because people couldn't / wouldn't speak up.
    Crew Resource Management was a problem for all airlines for decades (and still is in some parts of the world). There were lots of incidents of captains overruling first officers who were correct (often with disastrous results) in western airlines too, especially if the captain was a WW2 veteran and didn’t want to hear it if the first officer was still in nappies when the captain was giving Hitler a blood nose.
    Korean was / is particularly acute e.g. all the historic norms of drinking with elders.

    https://booksandbao.com/drink-korean-alcohol-etiquette-korea/
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416

    Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....

    We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/peaky-blinders-finale-review-dreary-slog-boom-twist-saved/

    It was a lovely enigmatic ending. The whispering breath stopped as he dies like the heartbeat nocturnal animals. With a tolling bell he was at peace. After death riding away on white horse framed by the burning carriage. The roof coming in closes the shot.

    I liked the slower pace to series 6, interesting characters orbiting a main focal point like comets in and out a suns influence. It’s been a rewarding journey these ten years. Has it really been that long? 😯
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    kle4 said:

    Jeremy Bowen
    A lot of armies do break international humanitarian law, and often commit war crimes. But sometimes its maybe a rogue unit, or individuals. In other cases, it's systemic. And looking at the pattern of behaviour I'd say, with the Russians, it is systemic. It comes from the top.

    https://twitter.com/politicalplayer/status/1510336111003910146

    Why do they so hate the Ukraine people 😢
  • Options
    PensfoldPensfold Posts: 191

    Never really got into Peaky Blinders, but thoughts of perhaps doing so extinguished with reporting that the final season has been crap and then comes the climax of the whole show....

    We knew things were about to get weird because the musical director had just treated us to the strains of a Radiohead side-project.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/peaky-blinders-finale-review-dreary-slog-boom-twist-saved/

    Peaky Blinders is worth it for the photography and the music. The drama is a bonus. Personnally I love it when Thomas Shelby comes out on top - an ultra cool protagonist.
  • Options
    PensfoldPensfold Posts: 191
    kle4 said:

    russia brought mobile crematoria, 45k body bags, and new instructions on digging mass graves to a conflict they thought they'd win essentially without casualties.

    that does not raise questions about what they intended to do once they took ukrainian territory. it answers them.


    https://twitter.com/theophite/status/1510420264302964736

    I struggle to think of a context for which 'mass grave instructional manual writer' would be a job a thinking human being would willingly take up. Pandemic preparation technician perhaps.
    Not just a mass grave but one with chemicals added to rot the bodies quickly to destroy evidence.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,001
    PaulD said:

    Gas is the big one. May be a move coming from European countries.

    Surely that will.just cut our nose off to spite our face
    You haven't replied to my email.

    Please do so to avoid the BH.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Army logistics branch arrived in Shanghai to help implementing lockdowns at communities. This suggests 0COVID policy is here to stay, not only in SH but anywhere else in China. A large quarantine center w private rooms will come online in weeks for 500-700K patients o/s of SH.

    https://twitter.com/Junheng_Li/status/1510717695871766528?s=20&t=ijJSH9Hv_uwnw-nzBFvqFA
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    kle4 said:

    "Giving Putin an offramp" is a disgusting phrase. Yes we all get the point that is being dressed up as assessment of practical realities (which does nothing to disguise its actual intent), but it still boils down to 'less resistance the better, as that gives him an out'.

    I don't think wanting an offramp implies less resistance. If there's less resistance, there's no reason for Putin to use an offramp.
This discussion has been closed.