Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Not my thing, but don't nuclear weapons require complex, expensive and frequent maintenance to remain functional? Indeed a factor in why Uktaine gave theirs up, though not the only one.
Absolutely right. Given how corrupt everyone in power in Russia appears to be, how much of that money do you think has been stolen?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
I would treat any assertion by a senior Russian that he is unafraid of nuclear retaliation as so much piss and wind.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
Incumbent Emmanuel Macron has won a second term in office, according to initial projections by pollster Ipsos. The sitting president won 58.2 percent of the vote, compared to 41.8 percent for his challenger, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, according to these projections.
Do we think there’s any chance of random unhelpful (but meaningless) results being reported first so there’s cash to be nibbles at on LePen? (Not because she’ll win but because there’ll be a panic and she’ll come in).
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Not my thing, but don't nuclear weapons require complex, expensive and frequent maintenance to remain functional? Indeed a factor in why Uktaine gave theirs up, though not the only one.
Absolutely right. Given how corrupt everyone in power in Russia appears to be, how much of that money do you think has been stolen?
There was an article recently that showed that many of the Oligarchs were happy to waste 10 roubles or dollars if that meant 1 safely ended up in their hands so I would guess 90% of all the money spent has been wasted to achieve a 20% return.
Do we think there’s any chance of random unhelpful (but meaningless) results being reported first so there’s cash to be nibbles at on LePen? (Not because she’ll win but because there’ll be a panic and she’ll come in).
No.
Because it's an absolutely massive lead in the exit poll. If it were 52/42 it would be different, but 58/42 is a huge lead. It means he's getting almost 40% more votes than she is.
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Given how disinclined Putin is to come within ten yards of other human beings or for that matter the Russian population is to risk their lives in Ukraine I'm not sure the whole 'Russians are not afraid of nuclear destruction' has much to back it up.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
You seem to have overdosed on the stupid pills. Try to understand the difference between "I believe X to be the case" and "I want [something which doesn't really look much like X at all but I can just about see how someone like you might think it did] to be the case."
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
Sorry but a few people on here are living in dream land if they think Russia does not have enough functioning nuclear weapons to obliterate Western Europe and a lot of the world.Of course they do . Some people are mad enough on here to rely on Russia having dodgy bombs and press on in some kind of proxy war (that they dont themselves wish to fight personally( well i am not in that camp - this war needs stopping now and egos on both sides backed down . This is the end of civilisation we are talking about not a football match
While we shouldn't read too much into the vote from the French overseas territories, it might suggest than in places where Macron did poorly in the first round, he's less likely to pick up transfers from Melenchon. The final result could be extremely geographically divided.
The nightmare scenario is rural areas going and voting for Le Pen while a lack of enthusiasm for Macron depresses turnout in Paris and among Muslims. Could end up a very tight result in either direction.
We here are left cheering for the awful (and deeply Anglophobe) Macron because his opponent is embedded in Putin's lower colon.
And the French have the temerity to laugh at our politics?
Not as Anglophobe as Le Pen.
PB EUro/Francophobes bleating about Macron's Anglophobia is a magnificent thing.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Given how disinclined Putin is to come within ten yards of other human beings or for that matter the Russian population is to risk their lives in Ukraine I'm not sure the whole 'Russians are not afraid of nuclear destruction' has much to back it up.
Putin - one would hope - would be scared of a situation where he launched a nuclear weapon and it didn't work.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
Given how disinclined Putin is to come within ten yards of other human beings or for that matter the Russian population is to risk their lives in Ukraine I'm not sure the whole 'Russians are not afraid of nuclear destruction' has much to back it up.
Putin - one would hope - would be scared of a situation where he launched a nuclear weapon and it didn't work.
Why? No one tells him the truth about the state of his military. And he seems utterly deluded about the state of Russia in general.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
You seem to have overdosed on the stupid pills. Try to understand the difference between "I believe X to be the case" and "I want [something which doesn't really look much like X at all but I can just about see how someone like you might think it did] to be the case."
Let me put this situation to you.
Poland acquires nuclear weapons.
Putin says if Poland doesn't disarm then he will launch a nuclear attack on the rest of Europe.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
Sorry but a few people on here are living in dream land if they think Russia does not have enough functioning nuclear weapons to obliterate Western Europe and a lot of the world.Of course they do . Some people are mad enough on here to rely on Russia having dodgy bombs and press on in some kind of proxy war (that they dont themselves wish to fight personally( well i am not in that camp - this war needs stopping now and egos on both sides backed down . This is the end of civilisation we are talking about not a football match
Sorry. That's not what we're saying.
There is substantial doubt as to whether a significant proportion of Russia's nuclear weapons work. And that means that Putin will be less inclined to use them, because a situation where London, Milan, Austin, Omaha, San Jose, Rome and Talinn are destroyed, but the rest of the Western world is not obliterated is not a great situation for him, and would be the end of Russia.
If you press the MAD button, you have to be assured that you will actually destroy your opponent, rather than merely grievously would him.
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
You seem to have overdosed on the stupid pills. Try to understand the difference between "I believe X to be the case" and "I want [something which doesn't really look much like X at all but I can just about see how someone like you might think it did] to be the case."
Let me put this situation to you.
Poland acquires nuclear weapons.
Putin says if Poland doesn't disarm then he will launch a nuclear attack on the rest of Europe.
Incumbent Emmanuel Macron has won a second term in office, according to initial projections by pollster Ipsos. The sitting president won 58.2 percent of the vote, compared to 41.8 percent for his challenger, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, according to these projections.
Much as it would have been good financially (and enabled me to say how much I got it right), I'm glad I was wrong. The last thing the world needs right now is a MLP-led France *
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
They have 5000 - 6000 warheads. Let's say I am a senile redneck with a collection of outdated and poorly maintained rifles and handguns, and 5000 to 6000 rounds of ammunition. How do you fancy your chances if you stand 100 yards away and let me take 5-6000 shots at you? And even a 5% successful world destruction would entail lots of OOM more grief and pain than Ukraine.
and Johnson needs to go - use partygate as an excuse (he should actually go because of it anyway) but he is far too gung-ho with the Ukraine war .i and my family will not die in a nuclear blast so he gets to play Churchill
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
Sorry but a few people on here are living in dream land if they think Russia does not have enough functioning nuclear weapons to obliterate Western Europe and a lot of the world.Of course they do . Some people are mad enough on here to rely on Russia having dodgy bombs and press on in some kind of proxy war (that they dont themselves wish to fight personally( well i am not in that camp - this war needs stopping now and egos on both sides backed down . This is the end of civilisation we are talking about not a football match
Sorry. That's not what we're saying.
There is substantial doubt as to whether a significant proportion of Russia's nuclear weapons work. And that means that Putin will be less inclined to use them, because a situation where London, Milan, Austin, Omaha, San Jose, Rome and Talinn are destroyed, but the rest of the Western world is not obliterated is not a great situation for him, and would be the end of Russia.
If you press the MAD button, you have to be assured that you will actually destroy your opponent, rather than merely grievously would him.
that is really bad logic - If Putin launches a nuclear strike he will know Russia will be bombed whether they work (they do ) or not . Dont push him
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
If my spreadsheet is working correctly and assuming uniform swing since 2017 Rd 2, Le Pen will win 26+7 departements (mainland + DOM-TOM) on a 58-42 national split.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
But Roger was right, they didn’t do it.
Yep. And as long as they keep not doing it they'll never do it.
Depressing chat with friend back from Ukraine. His view is that NATO will inevitably get sucked in and war is inevitable.
Unless a NATO nation is invaded by Putin, no
We rarely agree but you are absolutely correct. Putin has not yet crossed the line and there has been no direct confrontation between NATO troops and Russian forces nor has Putin attacked NATO territory.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
You seem to have overdosed on the stupid pills. Try to understand the difference between "I believe X to be the case" and "I want [something which doesn't really look much like X at all but I can just about see how someone like you might think it did] to be the case."
Let me put this situation to you.
Poland acquires nuclear weapons.
Putin says if Poland doesn't disarm then he will launch a nuclear attack on the rest of Europe.
What would you do ?
I don't know what point that is meant to establish. Putin could already say exactly the same about France or the UK, and get laughed at. You are talkling about A. threats against B. Nato countries, whereas our problem is A. actions against B. non Nato countries.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
But Roger was right, they didn’t do it.
Yep. And as long as they keep not doing it they'll never do it.
Absolutely infallible logic.
LOL I’ve gone from feeling increasingly tense to feeling happy 🙂
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
While it's true that failures would be likely, I don't think there's much doubt that some of them would work. And there is a real danger they'll prove it with the use of a tactical warhead in Ukraine.
I hope the US has made clear the possible consequences if they were to do so.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Fillon would have won, hopefully the centre right pick a better candidate like Bertrand in 2027 rather than Pecresse. They could then beat Le Pen and Melenchon in the first round and take on the En Marche candidate in the runoff
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
Let us hope Ben Wallace (and anyone sneering at badly-maintained Russian kit) is paying attention so the next time they are needed, our weapons have working batteries.
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
One wonders if it was the MoD not realising that weapons might have to work in non-UK temperatures when they bought stuff. And failing to put it in the contract. Vide Daring class destroyers (the modern ones, not the immediately postwar ones).
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Yes.
Indeed, we rely on, and train, our military to do the same.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
I actually suspect it will be less close without Macron.
He's a capable politician but not a particularly popular one, and won this election despite relatively low approval ratings.
Nothing is impossible, of course, but there's a reasonably high chance that the next election will be a moderate versus an extremist, and the moderate will be relatively fresh compared with Macron, and compared with the non-moderate.
Indeed, I think a Melenchon successor is more likely, on balance, to be a threat rather than Le Pen. She's stood in three Presidential elections now and, whilst you can point to progress, she's still lost pretty heavily, isn't getting any younger, and a lot of people have fixed views on her.
So unlike Brexit and Trump this one is in line with central polling
The US polls in 2020 were pretty accurate and in 2016 on national popular vote (not EC) not far out either.
A few polls had Leave ahead in 2016
On the eve of the Brexit vote, Opinium and TNS had Leave ahead, while YouGov, Populous and Ipsos Mori gave it to Remain.
Ironically, YouGov's penultimate survey got it almost completely right, with a three point lead for Leave but their final prediction downweighted Leave on the basis of differential turnover.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
School story talk. The reality of nuclear power is we don't stand up to them, we aren't standing up to them, and if they want to take the whole of the USSR back the rational thing is to let them. I don't like it, but that is how it is. There are no strong grounds for doubting Putin's ability and willingness to nuke London and NY and LA and Paris and a dozen other cities, all at once.
Yes but that also means we nuke Moscow and St Petersburg, so nobody wins, including him and he knows that.
Protecting NATO states remains the line in the sand
I've seen this exchange and I am a bit confused by it. To me it seems that the problem arises when our opponent (Putin) thinks we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state. He just needs to be told that he will be blown to bits if he tries anything on with nuclear weapons, and that he will be responsible as he started the fight, that we know where his bunker is, and we have a million missiles and he and everyone in Russia is going to die, and we will make absolutely certain of that. That is what Trump would have said, and that is why Putin did nothing to test the water from 2016-2020.
This is a better strategy than announcing that we have a policy that allows Putin to do whatever he wants because he has nukes, signing over most of europe to his "empire" in the process. Mutually Assured Destruction is not an ideal situation, but it is better than anything else, including the idea that we should let ourselves be invaded by Russia and adopt ghandi like non violent resistance to his insane bandit army of violent looters and rapists.
Fortunately the English have enough entrenched common sense to keep voting Conservative and only elect labour governments when they demonstrably stay roughly on track with these ideas. Hopefully the experience of Ukraine will do a lot of good in reinforcing them.
which credibly claims that Russia thinks it can survive all-out nuclear war, and also that a senior Putin ally has said that he doesn't much mind Russia being wiped out, provided the ROW is too.
So I don't think telling Putin "we know where his bunker is" helps very much. I also don't think anyone has suggested that "we won't use nukes in relation to an attack on a NATO state." Nor is anyone in this thread in charge of relations between NATO and Russia (nor is the UK government). The present situation is, whether you like it or not, that NATO is very clear that it dare not intervene directly in non-NATO countries, even if that puts its members in breach of fundamental treaty commitments under other treaties. This is not yellow-bellied commie-think, it is what is happening.
And what is your objection to spelling Gandhi's name the way he spelled it?
With all due respect, that is exactly what they want you to believe.
And given how efficient Russia's conventional forces have been, do we really think their nuclear weapons would actually successfully destroy the world?
We know that US, UK, and French nuclear weapons will work. There is considerable doubt that Russia's would.
Sorry but a few people on here are living in dream land if they think Russia does not have enough functioning nuclear weapons to obliterate Western Europe and a lot of the world.Of course they do . Some people are mad enough on here to rely on Russia having dodgy bombs and press on in some kind of proxy war (that they dont themselves wish to fight personally( well i am not in that camp - this war needs stopping now and egos on both sides backed down . This is the end of civilisation we are talking about not a football match
Sorry. That's not what we're saying.
There is substantial doubt as to whether a significant proportion of Russia's nuclear weapons work. And that means that Putin will be less inclined to use them, because a situation where London, Milan, Austin, Omaha, San Jose, Rome and Talinn are destroyed, but the rest of the Western world is not obliterated is not a great situation for him, and would be the end of Russia.
If you press the MAD button, you have to be assured that you will actually destroy your opponent, rather than merely grievously would him.
Grievously would him is excellent, death by a thousand hypotheticals
MAD theory is quite well worked out, and it makes no odds whether you wound or totally annihilate the opposition because his nukes are in annihilation proof locations like submarines and secret silos
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
So what would you say if Poland and the Baltics equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons ?
I'd say, I see Poland and the Baltics have equipped themselves with their own nuclear weapons. Good for them, and I am glad NPT enforcement is not part of my job description
What should I say?
Given that you seem willing for Putin to become Tsar of the world wouldn't a nuclear armed Poland be a bit troublesome ?
You seem to have overdosed on the stupid pills. Try to understand the difference between "I believe X to be the case" and "I want [something which doesn't really look much like X at all but I can just about see how someone like you might think it did] to be the case."
Let me put this situation to you.
Poland acquires nuclear weapons.
Putin says if Poland doesn't disarm then he will launch a nuclear attack on the rest of Europe.
What would you do ?
I don't know what point that is meant to establish. Putin could already say exactly the same about France or the UK, and get laughed at. You are talkling about A. threats against B. Nato countries, whereas our problem is A. actions against B. non Nato countries.
This is what you said earlier today:
Have you read that reaction.life article? Do you not believe it? Because if it is true the most rational solution by a country mile is to let putin have what he wants up to the greatest extent of the USSR, including if he wants it East Germany, and hope for another 1989 event in a couple of generations time.
So there's a solution right there. What is yours?
You said the rational thing to do is let Putin have half of Europe.
So what happens if that half of Europe gets nuclear weapons to oppose Putin ?
If you press the MAD button, you have to be assured that you will actually destroy your opponent, rather than merely grievously would him.
Now that is the real definition of poking the bear.
The ideal for us, if not Ukraine, is that this war gets bogged down in a brutal stalemate with Russia under increasing pressure to reach a truce. Much though I would like to see a Russian collapse I think that it is just too dangerous.
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Yes.
Indeed, we rely on, and train, our military to do the same.
Even leaving that aside, there is no evidence whatsoever so far of the Russian military chain of command breaking down. Quite the reverse. All the evidence is that Russian soldiers are following all and any orders no matter how diabolical.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
This run-off system in a time of populism and disenchantment is precarious, that's for sure.
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
Let us hope Ben Wallace (and anyone sneering at badly-maintained Russian kit) is paying attention so the next time they are needed, our weapons have working batteries.
I do hope our own military have cut down on the parading around in favour of something more practical these last two months.
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
I have no disagreement with your last sentence but this is not a cold war, it is real war with many unpredictable and undesirable consequences
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Comments
Solid victory for Macron, albeit still closer than 2017
Macron: 57.6 %
Le Pen: 42.4 %
Lolz
Incumbent Emmanuel Macron has won a second term in office, according to initial projections by pollster Ipsos. The sitting president won 58.2 percent of the vote, compared to 41.8 percent for his challenger, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, according to these projections.
Delighted anyway, not because I hold Macron in high esteem but the alternative would be a disaster alongside people like Trump and Farage
Thank you France . The hate filled right wing garbage press in the UK who were desperate for a Le Pen win can go fxck themselves !
Because it's an absolutely massive lead in the exit poll. If it were 52/42 it would be different, but 58/42 is a huge lead. It means he's getting almost 40% more votes than she is.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3895935#Comment_3895935
Of course, there may be another Le Pen at the head of the RN/FN by that point.
People got super excited by a couple of 51/49 polls.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2022/apr/24/french-election-2022-live-results-projection-second-round-emmanuel-macron-marine-le-pen
Poland acquires nuclear weapons.
Putin says if Poland doesn't disarm then he will launch a nuclear attack on the rest of Europe.
What would you do ?
The ruling Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) on 22.5% and 26 seats.
Christian Democrats on 6.8% (8) and Social Democrats on 6.6%. (6) and the Left on 4.4% (5).
IF correct, a huge win for Robert Golob and the centre-left and a huge defeat for Janez Jansa's centre-right Government but we'll see.
There is substantial doubt as to whether a significant proportion of Russia's nuclear weapons work. And that means that Putin will be less inclined to use them, because a situation where London, Milan, Austin, Omaha, San Jose, Rome and Talinn are destroyed, but the rest of the Western world is not obliterated is not a great situation for him, and would be the end of Russia.
If you press the MAD button, you have to be assured that you will actually destroy your opponent, rather than merely grievously would him.
Any chance of inching up to 60%+ pretty please.
* although Macron is still a tw*t
A few polls had Leave ahead in 2016
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
LOL I’ve gone from feeling increasingly tense to feeling happy 🙂
And there is a real danger they'll prove it with the use of a tactical warhead in Ukraine.
I hope the US has made clear the possible consequences if they were to do so.
He's a capable politician but not a particularly popular one, and won this election despite relatively low approval ratings.
Nothing is impossible, of course, but there's a reasonably high chance that the next election will be a moderate versus an extremist, and the moderate will be relatively fresh compared with Macron, and compared with the non-moderate.
Indeed, I think a Melenchon successor is more likely, on balance, to be a threat rather than Le Pen. She's stood in three Presidential elections now and, whilst you can point to progress, she's still lost pretty heavily, isn't getting any younger, and a lot of people have fixed views on her.
Ironically, YouGov's penultimate survey got it almost completely right, with a three point lead for Leave but their final prediction downweighted Leave on the basis of differential turnover.
MAD theory is quite well worked out, and it makes no odds whether you wound or totally annihilate the opposition because his nukes are in annihilation proof locations like submarines and secret silos
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
Thank fuck for that.
Have you read that reaction.life article? Do you not believe it? Because if it is true the most rational solution by a country mile is to let putin have what he wants up to the greatest extent of the USSR, including if he wants it East Germany, and hope for another 1989 event in a couple of generations time.
So there's a solution right there. What is yours?
You said the rational thing to do is let Putin have half of Europe.
So what happens if that half of Europe gets nuclear weapons to oppose Putin ?
I first read it as 52/48, which would have been somewhat more interesting as a contest.
https://twitter.com/edmnangagwa/status/1518293365128839174?s=21&t=LgiM_1x4FudvUoz4f6xxQw
La Marseillaise - Casablanca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc
That would be interesting.
Life's a bitch
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.