Ukraine

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Why are we so bellicose when it comes to Russia? It seems that we’re willing to do things that even the Americans don’t feel comfortable with. And it’s cross party too. Is it blowback from the Skripal poisonings? 
 

Either way, I’m not sure the British public is going to be too enthusiastic about us firing missiles into Russia but I suppose it’s ‘morally the right thing to do’. 

And Markov 

 

And Litvinenko

 

And Gorbuntsov

 

And Perepilichnyy

 

And Berezovsky

 

Basically, fvck Russia. They've been a rogue nation for so long they need a seriously sound slapping.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

They've been using Challenger 2's in the Kursk offensive (and remember us even providing heavy armour was a previous "red line") and slamming Storm Shadow into Navy HQ in Sevastopol, so not really sure letting them hit miliary targets in Russia is any worse than what's been happening already.  I'd hope the plan is to strike air fields, fuel storage etc. rather than dropping cruise miles onto Vlad during his morning ablutions.  Can't see the former of those being any more escalatory than what's happening already, the latter would, obviously, be daft.

 

*Edit*  The other thought could be if there's a risk of cruise missiles striking more valuable targets in the mainland, it could potentially require movement of air defence closer to Moscow and make targets in the occupied territories easier to destroy.

I don’t think Storm Shadow can get anywhere near Moscow in terms of range. Its only 195 miles I read.

[Lionator]

Looks like the west are slowly strong arming Ukraine into at least considering a ceasefire. It’s a horrible situation as Ukraine probably can’t win back the Donbas let alone Crimea, but giving up on that will be awful. However if we try and get Ukraine into NATO, there’s no way Russia will agree to a ceasefire and will literally fight to the end. So who knows. A lot depends on the US elections as there’s zero chance Trump accepts Ukraine into nato. 

Edited 16 October 2024 by Lionator

[Lionator]

A good thread from a great Ukrainian poster about how the war may be winding down.

 

another thing of interest to me is that Russia has gotten North Korea to fight for them but Belarus still hasn’t. Everyone says Belarus is a Russian client state but I do think Lukashenko has played it very cleverly throughout this war. While it’s clear they are a strong Russian ally, he has somehow maintained a sense of independence from them and is clearly rebuking Putin in spite of some very strong pressure. Maybe he’s terrified of being overthrown or maybe there’s something a bit deeper going on.

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

A good thread from a great Ukrainian poster about how the war may be winding down.

 

another thing of interest to me is that Russia has gotten North Korea to fight for them but Belarus still hasn’t. Everyone says Belarus is a Russian client state but I do think Lukashenko has played it very cleverly throughout this war. While it’s clear they are a strong Russian ally, he has somehow maintained a sense of independence from them and is clearly rebuking Putin in spite of some very strong pressure. Maybe he’s terrified of being overthrown or maybe there’s something a bit deeper going on.

From what I’ve read, the people of Belarus aren’t as behind Lukashenko as he’d like the world to think. ie Cooperating with Russia is one thing, but if he sent them to actual war, there’s a chance the army could turn on him. I think it’s a thread neither he nor Putin want to pull at.

[Lionator]

What’s the deal with Musk and the Russian government? There’s been all sorts of rumours of contacts between the two over the past couple of years. 
 

It’s sad that the Ukrainian people are going to get very little say in what happens in the end here but I suppose that great power geo-politics. I hope they get a referendum/election based upon whatever deal is concocted. 

[Dunge]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

What’s the deal with Musk and the Russian government? There’s been all sorts of rumours of contacts between the two over the past couple of years. 
 

It’s sad that the Ukrainian people are going to get very little say in what happens in the end here but I suppose that great power geo-politics. I hope they get a referendum/election based upon whatever deal is concocted. 

Even if they do, I imagine that practically it would be “Accept this or be left to your fate”.

 

If there is a deal, which seems to be the way it’s going, I expect Zelensky will offer his resignation and live abroad, maybe even in the UK.

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Even if they do, I imagine that practically it would be “Accept this or be left to your fate”.

 

If there is a deal, which seems to be the way it’s going, I expect Zelensky will offer his resignation and live abroad, maybe even in the UK.

Yeah for his own sake I hope he quits as soon as it’s done. He’s done all he can and the bloke deserves it, though I hope they can find somewhere a bit more luxurious than here. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Anyone that says we have depleted influence on the international stage hasn't been on the receiving end of a Storm Shadow. 

 

 

[SecretPro]

[Wymsey]

Is Trump's stance on Russia dissimilar to Biden's?

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Is Trump's stance on Russia dissimilar to Biden's?

In rhetoric, yes. In action, we’ll see.

[bovril]

53 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Anyone that says we have depleted influence on the international stage hasn't been on the receiving end of a Storm Shadow. 

 

Thanking God that we are still a major player in NATO as I crawl through the irradiated swamp that used to be my home town

[Mike Oxlong]

My view is that the west has let Ukraine down. At the beginning and up till now it should have either gone all in or not at all. 

[westernpark]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

My view is that the west has let Ukraine down. At the beginning and up till now it should have either gone all in or not at all. 

The west has let Ukraine down for longer than this war. However, I personally believe our response to this part of the conflict has been fairly good. Nonetheless, I’d argue Obama appeased Putin and Russia, as did much of the world and us, up to probably 2022. To be fair to Biden he has always been consistent in his thoughts and actions towards Russia and Putin- see his vice presidency.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, westernpark said:

The west has let Ukraine down for longer than this war. However, I personally believe our response to this part of the conflict has been fairly good. Nonetheless, I’d argue Obama appeased Putin and Russia, as did much of the world and us, up to probably 2022. To be fair to Biden he has always been consistent in his thoughts and actions towards Russia and Putin- see his vice presidency.

I would agree that the response from NATO aligned powers has been pretty much on the money.

 

I do however take issue when the word "appease" or "appeasement" gets bandied around when concerning a party that, at any time of their choosing, can decide to end human civilisation.

 

Those words imply Chamberlain-esque weakness and it's not weak to be careful in diplomacy towards a power that has nuclear capacity. Belligerence and "acting strong" only goes so far (and appears only so macho) when the other guy can wipe you and himself out at the push of a button with nothing you can do about it.

 

Perhaps it's because the UK hasn't been involved in a large scale shooting match since WW2, but some folks in the UK appear to think the strategic and diplomatic game hasn't changed at all since. It has, decisively, mostly due to that power of mutually assured destruction.

[Mike Oxlong]

I think the analogy of giving Ukraine enough to fight with one hand tied behind their back is fitting. If you worry about a nuclear power initiating MAD then you may as well give them everything they ask for at the outset. Putin doesn't want it any more than we do 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I think the analogy of giving Ukraine enough to fight with one hand tied behind their back is fitting. If you worry about a nuclear power initiating MAD then you may as well give them everything they ask for at the outset. Putin doesn't want it any more than we do 

I disagree, I think there is a middle ground where somewhere like Ukraine can be supported enough to at least avoid strategic defeat while at the same time not being provocative enough to force a catastrophic escalation. I think that's being met (reasonably) well at the present time.

 

Of course, MAD doesn't get Putin what he wants either, but I'm not sure there's a reason to push things further than they need to be pushed when the stakes are absolute.

 

Edit: of course, my post was referring to the more jingoistic armchair generals, rather than much more nuanced and knowledgeable takes as this one is.

Edited 20 November 2024 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

NB. It's been said before, but sadly nuclear weapons do,  in this Might Makes Right world, give the upper echelons of the UN Security Council the right to screw with "lower ranked" nations as they see fit. The Cold War was sadly a lexicon of it, from all parties involved.

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I think the analogy of giving Ukraine enough to fight with one hand tied behind their back is fitting. If you worry about a nuclear power initiating MAD then you may as well give them everything they ask for at the outset. Putin doesn't want it any more than we do 

I think the generally accepted thing behind the scenes is that biggest danger of nuclear Armageddon is miscalculation or mistake. On that basis, being cautious made a lot of sense, particularly when Putin was acting strangely and likely on a cocktail of hard drugs for cancer or Parkinson’s at the start of the conflict.

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

Thanking God that we are still a major player in NATO as I crawl through the irradiated swamp that used to be my home town

 

You been playing "Fallout"?

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I think the generally accepted thing behind the scenes is that biggest danger of nuclear Armageddon is miscalculation or mistake. On that basis, being cautious made a lot of sense, particularly when Putin was acting strangely and likely on a cocktail of hard drugs for cancer or Parkinson’s at the start of the conflict.

 

Anyone who knows anyone on a "cocktail of hard drugs for cancer" will know, that whilst one is fully lucid and aware of everything, it is incapacitating, not "acting strangely" as you suggest.

 

That doesn't distract from the potential misjudgement. But who really knows what his MH state is on any given day?

[Zear0]

Not exactly a short watch, but really interesting to listen to.