Options
One year on – politicalbetting.com
One year on – politicalbetting.com
The Ukraine war is one year old. Here’s the scoreboard from a year of madness.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Given the continuing gap between Russian negotiating demands and their battlefield performance, it is going to take a while before that point is reached. Some lessons take a lot of bitter experience to learn.
It really doesn’t stand all that much direct comparison with the invasion of Ukraine. Except that without US help (and had they not had a major port on the southern tip of the country), South Korea would have been defeated much more quickly than Ukraine.
And also, of course, in Korea the US and its allies did the bulk of the early fighting, with the ROK forces only becoming a significant element later on.
Ukraine, in contrast, are doing their own fighting.
If Ukraine is given longer-range weapons to hit the Russian logistics that supply Crimea and the Donbas, then I think that is the surest route to forcing future Russian withdrawals earlier rather than later.
How do most invasions end ?
https://twitter.com/FLF_Nick/status/1628872763258675203
It seems Iranian ammunition is available to Ukraine on the international arms market.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628862999237693441
Ukrainian troops filming the preparation of tank ammo- nothing special at first glance, but the HE-FRAG projectile in the soldier's hands is, in fact, Iranian 🇮🇷 125mm OF19 which can be used with almost all Ukrainian tanks.
I wonder if Mao's successors have ever regretted his decision?
‘Invasions’ are only a subset of ‘conflicts’, so I don’t think you can treat the two as indistinguishable.
Wouldn't surprise me if some of that money was finding its way to Iran.
Whether any friends of ministers have been involved in this process, and taken their cut, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
As the Ukrainians say, if Russia stops fighting then that will be the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting then that will be the end of Ukraine.
As soon as the Russian state starts to fear for its own survival it has the option of cutting its losses in Ukraine and concentrating on its survival, and it would only fail to survive if it grossly miscalculates.
And I’d disagree about its position on the list.
And of course all of us tend to conflate probabilities with our opinions.
But I’d agree entirely with you that wars are inherently unpredictable.
Although the transfer of Iranian artillery ammunition to Russia was recently reported- so far we haven't seen any Iranian materiel used by Russian forces- but rest assured if we do, we will report on it.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1628863016694325249
Also:
This is the fourth type of ammunition of Iranian origin to be documented in use with the Ukrainian military: prior to this, we have noted Ukrainian troops using 122mm/152mm artillery projectiles and 122mm Grad rockets- all made in Iran in 2022.
Anyhow, I hope this war will end with 4. And as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.
First education, now journalism is the target.
DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling
Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/23/florida-gop-desantis-proposal-sue-media-00084023
… “I have never seen anything remotely like this legislation,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “I can’t say I have seen every bill ever introduced, but I’d be quite surprised if any state Legislature had seriously considered such a brazen and blatantly unconstitutional attack on speech and press freedoms.”
He added: “This bill is particularly remarkable since its provisions have the vocal support of a governor and likely presidential candidate.”..
You've lost me here.
It has all the depth and glitter of Lulu Lytle's gold wallpaper.
Ouch.
But if you accept as axiomatic that Putin will fall and the Russian empire break up if they are defeated in Ukraine, then the resulting chaos might look dangerous.
Though if course it’s not axiomatic, and those things could also happen without a war in Ukraine.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64748349
Whatever/whoever comes after Putin is, I’m sure, being actively gamed in intel/military circles. It’s going to be a moment/period of serious nuclear risk.
As does Ukraine pushing back to either the 2014 or 2021 boundaries, or somewhere in between, this year, and the front stabilising there. And an armistice agreed. 7 or 8.
Point is there are a number of possible outcomes which you don’t think are possible, along with the ones which you think are.
Good header.
A *really* cold winter, where the wind didn't blow would likely still cause problems, but the safety margin is increasing all the time.
Just as a matter of interest, would it have been better in the Second World War if we'd offered the Nazis a nice face saving way out? Or maybe conspired to keep them in place, just to make sure that we didn't get someone worse in power?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/23/volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-leadership-comedy-00083489
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
I knew one of the developers who worked on the SNES (SEGA?) port of Lemmings and he was constantly worried about running out of RAM on the console due to each 'dig' being a different 'sprite' as far as the console was concerned,
#100%trufax
U.K. 0.5% of GDP - after the cut
New Zealand 0.30% of GDP
On Ukraine - that’s why, to stop the war, we should offer Putin a territorial concession. A big old chunk of Wales. Who could object to that?
Is your aunt single? Asking for a friend...
I think that it will grind on as a stalemate.
One thing UKR and NATO need to plan for is the return of Trump and the switching off of American aid. It could be just two years away.
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
And he's going to lose power at some point anyway, war or no war. What happens to Russia then, who knows?
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
https://archive.ph/G4kuE
At the time, just in the run up to the conflict I posted that Putin had left himself no off ramps and so it was. The key support came from the FSB and Putins own paramilitary creation the National Guard. The latter in particular put in notable manpower in the earliest days of the conflict. That was an indication of perhaps the state of the Russian forces overall. The National Guard is not a heavy military force, something that soon got found out.
On an unrelated note I am sad to say that my prediction that some of those who were likely involved in the planning & shooting of a police officer in Omagh yesterday were home based around 25-30miles away from the town. Two of those arrested today are indeed from 30 miles away. Its a small place and people know who the players are.
On the arrests, are you suggesting the individuals were from the south?
“The same media organization—in Khmer—said the girl had 12 contacts and that 4 of them had flulike symptoms. Agence France-Presse said officials are waiting on tests collected from dead birds found near the girl's village.”
https://twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/1628888680424173576
That doesn't include Russia's domestic defenestrations.
For the wee lassie’s sake apart from anything else.
My own view is that the probability is around 5 per cent. It is not the most likely outcome. But, it is way more likely than I judge acceptable. I also think if Boris become Secretary General of NATO, the probability is higher.
Let's say
P(1) ≈ 5 %
P(2) ≈ 10 %
P(3) ≈ 40 %
P(4) ≈ 30 %
P(5) ≈ 5%
P(something else) ≈ 10 %
Now of course, you may disagree with my probabilities which are just guesses. But, I think it is a useful exercise to think of outcomes and how likely they really are.
I think the PB preferred outcome -- Ukraine recovering all its territory including Crimea, a victorious Ukraine stopping promptly at the border and a losing Russia not suffering major & very dangerous internal convulsions -- is incredibly unlikely, say ≈ < 5 %
If it is true that China has decided to supply Russia with drones then we can expect the escalation of “deglobalisation” and even sanctions.
This would not be a positive move for the global economy.
(I actually cannot remember if Organize is the British or American spelling).
Why two?
Because in the 1982 version, McEvedy said: "What had been greeted as peace quickly changed into an era of 'Cold War'. And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf has remained unbridged: There has been detente, but no rapprochement.
Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
That flat statement made me wonder whether, in the 2002 edition (which has "New" added to the title), McEvedy admitted he had been wrong.
He didn't.
(Full disclosure: By 1982, as incurable optimist, I believed that the Soviet regime would collapse of its own internal contradictions, but I did not expect it to happen nearly as soon as it did.
I think Putin's kleptocratic oligarchy will also collapse, but have no idea when that will happen.)
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
Russia has money coming in from fossil fuels and can't be economically isolated unless they really piss off China. So if they run out of ammunition or something, Ukraine pushes them back to its borders and they give up, that's in no way the end of the Russian state, and not necessarily the end of Putin.
1. Putin tests a nuclear weapon in the vicinity as a show of force
2. Putin uses a battlefield nuke against Ukrainian troops
3. Putin tries to nuke a major Ukrainian city
In all cases, how would this help Russia achieve a strategic victory? Do you think of a nuclear escalation as just meaning that Russia launches a first strike on NATO with everything they've got?
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
If this seems alien to you, remember this graphic from The Times in 2001:
https://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
That is because -- you may have noticed -- whenever there is a border, there are some minorities on the other side of it. It is in fact a pretty fucking ubiquitous phenomenon.
Other than that, your post is Boris bluster.
You know nothing about my views. As evidence, only the other day, you were gaily posting slanderous stuff about me being anti-vax and pro-invermectin.