General News

[Lionator]

9 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Assuming you mean nuclear, well you have to be able and willing to use them. Would they be used in the defence of say Estonia?

We’d want Russia to think they would but let’s be honest they probably wouldn’t. Not to begin with anyway. It would have to escalate. But again we’d have to work out what motivation Putin would have to actually try and attack Estonia. Because it would be an almighty and needless gamble now he has his man in the White House. 

[Dunge]

11 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Assuming you mean nuclear, well you have to be able and willing to use them. Would they be used in the defence of say Estonia?

I think Lionator’s words there are referring to conventional warfare.

 

I mean, nuclear warfare isn’t even really warfare.

[Bilo]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I’m sorry but so many reactions are bordering on insane, it’s actually becoming incredibly dangerous. If Europe falls? How would it fall? Who is going to make it fall? The army that couldn’t even take a fifth of one of the poorest countries in Europe? Do you really think Putin has any intention of rolling across Europe?? Listen and read to actual experts on this topic rather than the sound bites on sky news and on social media by people who haven’t got the first clue about foreign policy, who only flit from one crisis news topic to another. Europe is not falling. Europe will be fine. It just needs to grow a backbone, and believe itself again. Putin is a bad man, he is not insane. 

This, pretty much.

 

Russia is a fading power. Its myth of military superpower status is dead after humiliation in Ukraine; it clearly wanted regime change and will end up with barely more land than it controlled in 2022, a complete international pariah, thousands dead, NATO having grown and most of Europe have divested from the raw materials its already declining and lumbering economy is dependent on.

 

Its superpower status is dead, its status as a great power is declining and it may very well become a minor regional power and client state of China in our lifetime. Putin knows it as well. These are the death throes of yesterday's country. When Putin is gone, the decline will accelerate further. There simply is no long-term future where Russia remains a major power.

 

If they were stupid enough to launch an invasion of any EU or NATO country, they would lose very badly even if the US sat it out. As you rightly said, they have been embroiled in a huge stalemate with one of the poorest countries in Europe, with significant paramilitary groups and Russian-speaking minorities, for three years. What the hell would happen if they tried the same in Poland, with an economy and military multiple times larger than Ukraine and all but certain to be backed up by European powers? As you say, Putin is a bastard but he isn't stupid. That road would lead to a humiliation and military catastrophe so profound it would probably end with him either in the Black Dolphin or accidentally falling out of a window.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I think Lionator’s words there are referring to conventional warfare.

 

I mean, nuclear warfare isn’t even really warfare.

I think it is warfare - just the kind that is rather brief and very absolute.

[grth2004]

23 hours ago, Dunge said:

Problem is, it’s not as simple as saying “Europe, unite”. What do you do about Hungary and Slovakia, for instance? What about other far-right parties across Europe who are both sympathetic toward Russia and could get into power?

It is simple, Europe becomes as hard as America and Russia and we act as one and if countries don’t want to be part of that then let them go alone. My guess is most will prefer to be part of a strong Europe. 

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, grth2004 said:

It is simple, Europe becomes as hard as America and Russia and we act as one and if countries don’t want to be part of that then let them go alone. My guess is most will prefer to be part of a strong Europe. 

It’s possible of course, but could end up with a very long southern/eastern border and would take a long time to create. We’re currently looking at 2.5% expenditure by 2027; At that rate there’ll be another American election before we get anywhere near serious. In the meantime, we have a gap to bridge. It’s no surprise to me that Starmer’s at least hesitant before giving up on America.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Trump’s going to be seething when Starmer gets the Nobel Peace Prize 😂

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Trump’s going to be seething when Starmer gets the Nobel Peace Prize 😂

Truss's head might actually explode.

[blabyboy]

5 hours ago, Lionator said:

Preventing war through deterrence is by orders of magnitude less expensive than going to war. 

It just didn't feel right, so I checked.

Last year the UK spent £53.9 billions on defence. (Parliament UK)

 

The Iran and Afghanistan war cost to the UK was between £8.4 billions (Wikipedia) and £9.6 billions ( The Gruniad) over several years.

 

If we split it by 3 to keep highish, then the cost for a year fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to approximately 6% of the current budget.

 

The UK allocated £13.3 billions last year for foreign aid - enough to accommodate a war spread over several years if we took all of it across, which we haven't .But we have allocated a portion and that is what Starmer has effectively done recently and why Dodds resigned.

 

In order to prevent war in the future the UK and others are going to need to increase their spending significantly just to keep some sort of deterrence in any aggressors thoughts. And bear in mind that we may not actually use much of those extra munitions, weapons and vehicles as intended for years, if ever so the opportunity cost of this increase is massive - less for health, less for education, less for pensioners and most likely more taxes in some form.

 

It will not be cheap, it will not be orders of magnitude cheap, it will be bloody expensive to not go to war and we could be paying over the odds for years without realising that investment (hopefully).

[simFox]

Once see the size of Marco Rubio's ears, it's hard to see anything else. It's like something off Star Trek.

[Dahnsouff]

Turkey seems to be making a strange pivot with regards to Ukraine, or perhaps this is just the latest example of playing both sides to the benefit of Turkey.

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, blabyboy said:

It just didn't feel right, so I checked.

Last year the UK spent £53.9 billions on defence. (Parliament UK)

 

The Iran and Afghanistan war cost to the UK was between £8.4 billions (Wikipedia) and £9.6 billions ( The Gruniad) over several years.

 

If we split it by 3 to keep highish, then the cost for a year fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to approximately 6% of the current budget.

 

The UK allocated £13.3 billions last year for foreign aid - enough to accommodate a war spread over several years if we took all of it across, which we haven't .But we have allocated a portion and that is what Starmer has effectively done recently and why Dodds resigned.

 

In order to prevent war in the future the UK and others are going to need to increase their spending significantly just to keep some sort of deterrence in any aggressors thoughts. And bear in mind that we may not actually use much of those extra munitions, weapons and vehicles as intended for years, if ever so the opportunity cost of this increase is massive - less for health, less for education, less for pensioners and most likely more taxes in some form.

 

It will not be cheap, it will not be orders of magnitude cheap, it will be bloody expensive to not go to war and we could be paying over the odds for years without realising that investment (hopefully).

A war with Russia would be a damn lot more expensive than Iraq because you’d need to take measures at home. Iraq didn’t have the capability of obliterating the whole country in a few minutes for example (hence why even the mere thought of going to war with Russia is insane). 
 

Also, imagine what happens to the world economy when two nuclear powers start a war against each other. It would crash.

Edited 2 March by Lionator

[simFox]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

A war with Russia would be a damn lot more expensive than Iraq because you’d need to take measures at home. Iraq didn’t have the capability of obliterating the whole country in a few minutes for example (hence why even the mere thought of going to war with Russia is insane). 
 

Also, imagine what happens to the world economy when two nuclear powers start a war against each other. It would crash.

If America keep spending money like a drunk sailor, the world economy will crash anyway. Likely just when I retire. 

[Jon the Hat]

10 hours ago, Bilo said:

This, pretty much.

 

Russia is a fading power. Its myth of military superpower status is dead after humiliation in Ukraine; it clearly wanted regime change and will end up with barely more land than it controlled in 2022, a complete international pariah, thousands dead, NATO having grown and most of Europe have divested from the raw materials its already declining and lumbering economy is dependent on.

 

Its superpower status is dead, its status as a great power is declining and it may very well become a minor regional power and client state of China in our lifetime. Putin knows it as well. These are the death throes of yesterday's country. When Putin is gone, the decline will accelerate further. There simply is no long-term future where Russia remains a major power.

 

If they were stupid enough to launch an invasion of any EU or NATO country, they would lose very badly even if the US sat it out. As you rightly said, they have been embroiled in a huge stalemate with one of the poorest countries in Europe, with significant paramilitary groups and Russian-speaking minorities, for three years. What the hell would happen if they tried the same in Poland, with an economy and military multiple times larger than Ukraine and all but certain to be backed up by European powers? As you say, Putin is a bastard but he isn't stupid. That road would lead to a humiliation and military catastrophe so profound it would probably end with him either in the Black Dolphin or accidentally falling out of a window.

The glaring problem with your logic is that NATO forces have been bought, built and trained to work as an integrated force, so if the US sits it out as you say, there are huge gaps in technology, communication, command structure and logistics which make the remaining NATO forces pretty basic.  This is why it’s so shocking when or if the US turns around and takes its ball home, it’s bloody hard for anyone else to play effectively.

[Salisbury Fox]

A really good piece of analysis on the American approach to peace in Ukraine in the video linked below which culminated in the Oval Office spat the other day. Seems very plausible to me, well worth a watch.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kITMluS2pT4

[Md9]

11 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Trump’s going to be seething when Starmer gets the Nobel Peace Prize 😂

Hopefully annoys him so much he has a heart attack and is never seen again 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The glaring problem with your logic is that NATO forces have been bought, built and trained to work as an integrated force, so if the US sits it out as you say, there are huge gaps in technology, communication, command structure and logistics which make the remaining NATO forces pretty basic.  This is why it’s so shocking when or if the US turns around and takes its ball home, it’s bloody hard for anyone else to play effectively.

The US are king of logistics, that is true.

 

That being said, I'm pretty sure that Russia are hardly good at that either, so perhaps the drop in effectiveness wouldn't be all that critical.

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The glaring problem with your logic is that NATO forces have been bought, built and trained to work as an integrated force, so if the US sits it out as you say, there are huge gaps in technology, communication, command structure and logistics which make the remaining NATO forces pretty basic.  This is why it’s so shocking when or if the US turns around and takes its ball home, it’s bloody hard for anyone else to play effectively.

That is all true. Although to be clear Russian forces have been shown to be pretty basic if not more so in all of those European gaps tbf.

 

Also I think where any war takes place is also very important with regards tech, logistics command structures etc.  it would seem plausible any coordinated European armed forces would be mainly of a defensive nature which would make it slightly easier to navigate those issues.

Edited 2 March by foxes1988

[Dahnsouff]

just tell her to shut up Kier 

[Lionator]

11 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Trump’s going to be seething when Starmer gets the Nobel Peace Prize 😂

And yet only one out of the two of them has a semi-credible plan for ‘peace’. Giving Zelenskyy hugs and giving him a red carpet to Buckingham palace doesn’t bring us any closer to peace, it just prolongs the war by gaslighting Ukraine into thinking we’d actually fight for them and makes us feel better about ourselves while the Ukranian (and Russian) 20, 30 and 40 year olds continue to get killed en masse.

Edited 2 March by Lionator

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And yet only one out of the two of them has a semi-credible plan for ‘peace’. Giving Zelenskyy hugs and giving him a red carpet to Buckingham palace doesn’t bring us any closer to peace, it just prolongs the war by gaslighting Ukraine into thinking we’d actually fight for them. 

Interesting you post this at the very same moment this popped up via a news alert;

 

“Starmer said that after discussions with Zelenskyy and Macron that there has been an agreement made that the UK, along with France, and “possibly one or two others” will work with Kyiv to stop the war. He said this agreed peace plan will be presented to the US.”

 

I assume this was said on Laura K?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

And yet only one out of the two of them has a semi-credible plan for ‘peace’. Giving Zelenskyy hugs and giving him a red carpet to Buckingham palace doesn’t bring us any closer to peace, it just prolongs the war by gaslighting Ukraine into thinking we’d actually fight for them. 

Making Ukraine concede territory is not the only option here, as this 100% cannot be a concession by the perceived smaller country. There is a known aggressor here and for them not concede something is madness, with exhibit a being Crimea.

Yes the possibility of a wider conflict then exits, but it will not be a nuclear conflict as there remains an exit strategy for Russia that allow them to save face.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And yet only one out of the two of them has a semi-credible plan for ‘peace’. Giving Zelenskyy hugs and giving him a red carpet to Buckingham palace doesn’t bring us any closer to peace, it just prolongs the war by gaslighting Ukraine into thinking we’d actually fight for them and makes us feel better about ourselves while the Ukranian (and Russian) 20, 30 and 40 year olds continue to get killed en masse.

Is it not obvious that Trump's plan for "peace" is the kind of "peace" that results from debellatio? That has always been the Russian intent and Trump is not going to convince them otherwise - and I'm not sure he'd even make any real effort to do so.

 

I don't think that anyone outside the insane want this war to rumble on any longer than it has or needs to, but I'm not seeing how the alternative being put on the table right now is any more acceptable except to those who think Might Is Right realpolitik should keep ruling the world.

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Making Ukraine concede territory is not the only option here, as this 100% cannot be a concession by the perceived smaller country. There is a known aggressor here and for them not concede something is madness, with exhibit a being Crimea.

Yes the possibility of a wider conflict then exits, but it will not be a nuclear conflict as there remains an exit strategy for Russia that allow them to save face.

So we keep saying to Ukraine that they can realistically take back Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk?? We should 100% be sending weapons to freeze the frontlines where they are. All of the European ‘peace plans’ involve one side of the war. The sad truth is Putin doesn’t respect us, but he would respect the United States and Zelenskyy knows this hence why he’s so desperate for security guarantees from them. That he’s not going to get. We’re lying to ourselves over and over again. 

[Lionator]

This is the best analysis on it all that I’ve seen.