General News

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Even a Russian imposed leader and Russian control? I struggle to understand how people can write them off after everything that has gone on.

Yeah with you on that. Not sure the population are too keen to live under the regime that raped, tortured and bombed their fellow Ukrainians. 

Edited 7 March by Zear0

[Super_horns]

 Very sad.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/police-give-update-on-death-of-gene-hackman-and-wife-betsy-arakawa-13323478

 

Basically died without knowing his wife was dead too .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Bilo said:

The Baltics worry me most. Fascist Russia feels they are still their territory, Trump is decidedly uninterested and their military is tiny.

 

They'll never get as far as they did pre-1991, Poland's military strength would see to that and an invasion of Poland would likely be a red line even for the idiot in Washington, but that's still six million people across three highly developed democracies who will be sleeping less soundly. 

I fully understand the worry but I don’t think Putin has ever explicitly threatened the Baltics, but of course they are vulnerable if the calculus changes. 

 

1 hour ago, Bilo said:

For me, it's about how economic pressure evolves.

 

Sanctions on Russia have done some damage, but they could be hitting a lot harder. If the goal is to put real pressure on Putin, then it’s time to step things up. That means cutting off the cash flow properly—no more half-measures on Russian oil and gas, no loopholes, no exemptions. Every barrel they sell funds the war. It means freezing Russian banks out of the global system entirely, making it impossible for them to move money around. It means going after the oligarchs, their families, and anyone else propping up the regime, making sure there’s nowhere to hide.

 

Russia shouldn’t have access to the tech it needs to build weapons or keep its industry going, so export bans need to be expanded. Any company or bank helping them dodge sanctions should face consequences too—there can’t be any backdoors left open. Businesses still dealing with Russia should be forced to disclose their connections, because transparency alone would deter many from continuing. And if we’re serious about holding Russia accountable, it should be officially designated as a state sponsor of terror, tightening restrictions even further.

 

Then there’s the matter of frozen Russian assets. If confiscating them outright is legally complicated, at the very least, the profits they generate should be put to use supporting Ukraine as employed by Starmer and Reeves. Every sanction should have real consequences. Right now, there’s too much room for manoeuvre, too many ways for Russia to keep going. It’s time to stop playing around and make sure these measures actually bite.

 

 

The problem is that the biggest economies in the world frankly don’t give a crap. China and India have only increased economic ties with Russia since 2022, then developing countries like Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, Gulf States are absolutely and massively investing in Russian resources. The EU is a huge economic bloc but even putting the maximum pressure on them now is not going to make much difference. The only thing will be how quickly they rearm, sanctions and pressure may hinder that. We’ve been promised imminent Russian economic collapse for three years, and to say the least Elvira Nabiullina is extremely competent at her job. We’re in snookers required territory yet the way the story is being told is that Ukraine still have some chance/leverage. 

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I fully understand the worry but I don’t think Putin has ever explicitly threatened the Baltics, but of course they are vulnerable if the calculus changes. 

 

The problem is that the biggest economies in the world frankly don’t give a crap. China and India have only increased economic ties with Russia since 2022, then developing countries like Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, Gulf States are absolutely and massively investing in Russian resources. The EU is a huge economic bloc but even putting the maximum pressure on them now is not going to make much difference. The only thing will be how quickly they rearm, sanctions and pressure may hinder that. We’ve been promised imminent Russian economic collapse for three years, and to say the least Elvira Nabiullina is extremely competent at her job. We’re in snookers required territory yet the way the story is being told is that Ukraine still have some chance/leverage. 

I don’t know the best way forward right now as far as Ukraine goes. With Trump as he is, I only see a choice of bad options. What I would say is that I have a degree of sympathy with your realistic view here in that I think quite a lot of the support for Ukraine right now is emotional - our allies have fought hard and well for so long for a cause that’s in our interest, and I don’t think people have the stomach to turn away from them the way Trump has.

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, Bilo said:

For me, it's about how economic pressure evolves.

 

Sanctions on Russia have done some damage, but they could be hitting a lot harder. If the goal is to put real pressure on Putin, then it’s time to step things up. That means cutting off the cash flow properly—no more half-measures on Russian oil and gas, no loopholes, no exemptions. Every barrel they sell funds the war. It means freezing Russian banks out of the global system entirely, making it impossible for them to move money around. It means going after the oligarchs, their families, and anyone else propping up the regime, making sure there’s nowhere to hide.

 

Russia shouldn’t have access to the tech it needs to build weapons or keep its industry going, so export bans need to be expanded. Any company or bank helping them dodge sanctions should face consequences too—there can’t be any backdoors left open. Businesses still dealing with Russia should be forced to disclose their connections, because transparency alone would deter many from continuing. And if we’re serious about holding Russia accountable, it should be officially designated as a state sponsor of terror, tightening restrictions even further.

 

Then there’s the matter of frozen Russian assets. If confiscating them outright is legally complicated, at the very least, the profits they generate should be put to use supporting Ukraine as employed by Starmer and Reeves. Every sanction should have real consequences. Right now, there’s too much room for manoeuvre, too many ways for Russia to keep going. It’s time to stop playing around and make sure these measures actually bite.

 

 

The level of ignorance in this post is astonishing 

[Bilo]

25 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

The level of ignorance in this post is astonishing 

So instruct me, oh great one. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Bilo said:

So instruct me, oh great one. 

I suspect his starting point is that, in fact, over half the world is quite happy with Russia, and they are perfectly happy to keep buying their oil and gas, and selling them all the tech and military equipment they need.  So there is that.

 

Edit: As Lionater clearly explained above.

Edited 8 March by Jon the Hat

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, Bilo said:

So instruct me, oh great one. 

Have you learned nothing from the past three years?

The emerging nations,global south if you will, have no beef with Russia.They like the cheap oil which is helping their GROWING economies.90% of the world’s children ain’t the West.You are going to have to get used to this.

The potential consequences of economically cutting Russia stone dead maybe a price you and your circle of friends are willing and able to pay.Don’t expect everyone to be as patient.

Have you even considered the fallout if the Russian economy does collapse NEXT YEAR?Do we Balkanise it?What if there’s a civil war?Loads of guns and stuff floating around there at the minute.5000 nukes stored God knows where.What could possibly go wrong. A real mess

[Bilo]

3 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Have you learned nothing from the past three years?

The emerging nations,global south if you will, have no beef with Russia.They like the cheap oil which is helping their GROWING economies.90% of the world’s children ain’t the West.You are going to have to get used to this.

The potential consequences of economically cutting Russia stone dead maybe a price you and your circle of friends are willing and able to pay.Don’t expect everyone to be as patient.

Have you even considered the fallout if the Russian economy does collapse NEXT YEAR?Do we Balkanise it?What if there’s a civil war?Loads of guns and stuff floating around there at the minute.5000 nukes stored God knows where.What could possibly go wrong. A real mess

People seem to think that if Russia’s economy collapses, the world will descend into chaos overnight. Civil war, loose nukes, total anarchy—the whole doomsday package. But let’s take a step back. Yes, forcing Russia into economic ruin without a plan would be reckless, but pretending that leaving it alone is the only way to maintain stability is just as short-sighted.

 

For starters, the idea that emerging economies will happily rely on cheap Russian oil forever is wishful thinking. The world doesn’t stand still. If Russia becomes unstable, its ability to supply energy will crumble, and those same countries will have to adapt. They won’t sit around waiting for Russia to get its act together. And let’s be real—Russia isn’t exactly a pillar of global stability as it is. From invading neighbours to energy blackmail and cyberattacks, it’s already causing chaos. Keeping it financially afloat just to avoid a hypothetical future disaster ignores the damage it’s doing right now.

 

Then there’s the fear that a collapsing Russia would lead to unsecured nuclear weapons. Because, of course, the Russian military will just leave them lying around for anyone to grab. Funny how that didn’t happen when the Soviet Union fell apart. The reality is more complicated, and if the situation ever got that bad, the rest of the world wouldn’t just sit back and watch.

 

This isn’t a choice between keeping Russia comfortable or plunging it into total ruin. There are ways to tighten the screws without sending it into freefall. The problem is that people love a dramatic worst-case scenario, especially when it justifies doing nothing.

 

 

[Lionator]

8 hours ago, Dunge said:

I don’t know the best way forward right now as far as Ukraine goes. With Trump as he is, I only see a choice of bad options. What I would say is that I have a degree of sympathy with your realistic view here in that I think quite a lot of the support for Ukraine right now is emotional - our allies have fought hard and well for so long for a cause that’s in our interest, and I don’t think people have the stomach to turn away from them the way Trump has.

I suppose with Trump that’s the benefit of being a bit of a sociopath. Contrary it’s maybe better that it’s happening like this as it gives us a scapegoat. The narrative has been sold for three years that Ukraine will win this war so most of the British public think it’s just a matter of time. There was one moment in Autumn 2022 when it was maybe possible but events didn’t transpire that way. Even now, the Kursk salient is falling apart with thousands of troops at risk of encirclement and there’s nothing on the news. This is now why we’re having to think of dramatic panic stricken responses rather than planning for the current, predictable scenario for the past two years. That is EU and European leaders in a nutshell. 

[ealingfox]

Just stick a bullet in that **** Putin, simples. There must be someone in the Kremlin who can be gotten to.

 

[ealingfox]

13 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

This is hilarious. Saying all that plainly but no accompanying suspension or anything? Also love that they felt the need to specify that the standards they supposedly hold apply to themselves. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Have you learned nothing from the past three years?

The emerging nations,global south if you will, have no beef with Russia.They like the cheap oil which is helping their GROWING economies.90% of the world’s children ain’t the West.You are going to have to get used to this.

The potential consequences of economically cutting Russia stone dead maybe a price you and your circle of friends are willing and able to pay.Don’t expect everyone to be as patient.

Have you even considered the fallout if the Russian economy does collapse NEXT YEAR?Do we Balkanise it?What if there’s a civil war?Loads of guns and stuff floating around there at the minute.5000 nukes stored God knows where.What could possibly go wrong. A real mess

And then you have a significant amount of the "global South" that don't have to use oil and gas for energy generation at all - thanks in large part to the Chinese.

 

Which is not a bad thing because if the countries you speak of and elsewhere continue to use fossil fuels for that purpose, the only thing growing for them and for everyone else will be incidents of flooding, drought and other extreme weather, and the count of death and suffering. I wonder how useful their growing economy will be for them then.

 

Our species really does have an issue with the long game, and it's deeply frustrating to see that and have a damn good idea of where it leads.

Edited 8 March by leicsmac

[Bilo]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And then you have a significant amount of the "global South" that don't have to use oil and gas for energy generation at all - thanks in large part to the Chinese.

 

Which is not a bad thing because if the countries you speak of and elsewhere continue to use fossil fuels for that purpose, the only thing growing for them and for everyone else will be incidents of flooding, drought and other extreme weather, and the count of death and suffering. I wonder how useful their growing economy will be for them then.

 

Our species really does have an issue with the long game, and it's deeply frustrating to see that and have a damn good idea of where it leads.

Ultimately, China is the future for the global south. Russia is yesterday's news and will be little more than a source of fossil fuels and minerals for China, at least until the former either becomes non-viable or the world learns to live without them. 

 

I suppose that the war in Ukraine, in Europe at least, has had the benefit of forcing much of the West to look elsewhere for energy sources. Better for the long game and far better for geopolitics, as Russia has little to nothing else to offer the outside world.

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I suppose with Trump that’s the benefit of being a bit of a sociopath. Contrary it’s maybe better that it’s happening like this as it gives us a scapegoat. The narrative has been sold for three years that Ukraine will win this war so most of the British public think it’s just a matter of time. There was one moment in Autumn 2022 when it was maybe possible but events didn’t transpire that way. Even now, the Kursk salient is falling apart with thousands of troops at risk of encirclement and there’s nothing on the news. This is now why we’re having to think of dramatic panic stricken responses rather than planning for the current, predictable scenario for the past two years. That is EU and European leaders in a nutshell. 

That hasn't been the narrative in the last three years at all. There was a period of about 6 months to maybe a year when there was talk of a Ukrainian counter offensive and possible Ukrainian victory. For the last 18 months there's been a narrative of Ukraine collapsing very soon or the war never ending.

 

I think that the main reason for 'panic stricken' responses is because of the US geopolitical shift personally and waning enthusiasm for pax anericana policing

[Lionator]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And then you have a significant amount of the "global South" that don't have to use oil and gas for energy generation at all - thanks in large part to the Chinese.

 

Which is not a bad thing because if the countries you speak of and elsewhere continue to use fossil fuels for that purpose, the only thing growing for them and for everyone else will be incidents of flooding, drought and other extreme weather, and the count of death and suffering. I wonder how useful their growing economy will be for them then.

 

Our species really does have an issue with the long game, and it's deeply frustrating to see that and have a damn good idea of where it leads.

Incidentally the ones that are good with the long game are China and to a lesser extent Russia. 

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I suppose with Trump that’s the benefit of being a bit of a sociopath. Contrary it’s maybe better that it’s happening like this as it gives us a scapegoat. The narrative has been sold for three years that Ukraine will win this war so most of the British public think it’s just a matter of time. There was one moment in Autumn 2022 when it was maybe possible but events didn’t transpire that way. Even now, the Kursk salient is falling apart with thousands of troops at risk of encirclement and there’s nothing on the news. This is now why we’re having to think of dramatic panic stricken responses rather than planning for the current, predictable scenario for the past two years. That is EU and European leaders in a nutshell. 

It shouldn’t have been a surprise to see Ukraine struggle to go on the offensive when they were being asked to employ combined arms manoeuvre without air support. It certainly wasn’t through a lack of willingness from Ukraine, it was more on the failure of the West to give them the tools to do the job. Also, switching off the intelligence support is hardly going to help with their difficulties either. For all of the struggles that they are having in Kursk, they are having some tactical successes near Pokrovsk and so they are very much still in the game. The frontline is not collapsing, although Trump is doing his best to change that.

 

As for predictability, is it not predictable that the world will become a more dangerous place when the US is prepared to sell out countries to a stronger aggressor state? We are already see some pulling out of conventions on the use of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, is this likely to encourage nuclear arms proliferation? My point is that you seem to be ignoring the consequences of the US position in favour of getting this ended now on terms friendly to Russia. I’m pretty sure Taiwan are watching this with great interest.

[Sampson]

10 hours ago, Super_horns said:

 Very sad.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/police-give-update-on-death-of-gene-hackman-and-wife-betsy-arakawa-13323478

 

Basically died without knowing his wife was dead too .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just read that. It’s quite heartbreaking

[Bilo]

9 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Incidentally the ones that are good with the long game are China and to a lesser extent Russia. 

Russia is buggered long-term. 

 

It's overly dependent on fossil fuels and minerals, which will be phased out by most of the world in time.

 

Even the Gulf states, extremely dependent on oil as they are, have been far more successful in diversifying their economies. Russia is still pouring much of its resources into the military-industrial complex, but its tech is still way off the likes of China, the US and Europe, so its ability even to sell that would be very limited.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Ultimately, China is the future for the global south. Russia is yesterday's news and will be little more than a source of fossil fuels and minerals for China, at least until the former either becomes non-viable or the world learns to live without them. 

 

I suppose that the war in Ukraine, in Europe at least, has had the benefit of forcing much of the West to look elsewhere for energy sources. Better for the long game and far better for geopolitics, as Russia has little to nothing else to offer the outside world.

 

14 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Incidentally the ones that are good with the long game are China and to a lesser extent Russia. 

Anyone who relies on fossil fuels for energy generation as the basis of their economy is not playing the long game well tbh.

 

In that regard, civilisation changes, or civilisation collapses. And the clock is ticking.

[Bilo]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Anyone who relies on fossil fuels for energy generation as the basis of their economy is not playing the long game well tbh.

 

In that regard, civilisation changes, or civilisation collapses. And the clock is ticking.

China’s technological advancements and economic diversification will lead them away from fossil fuels in time. Just look at the strides they're making in EVs, for example. Miles ahead of the US and a major threat to numerous European manufacturers. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Bilo said:

China’s technological advancements and economic diversification will lead them away from fossil fuels in time. Just look at the strides they're making in EVs, for example. Miles ahead of the US and a major threat to numerous European manufacturers. 

Agreed.

 

People can say what they like about the Chinese governmental method (and a lot of it may well be true), but on this matter they're setting the trend that the world really needs to follow.

 

They're also exporting the tech to other places, as well. However, that also does carry the risk of a form of "soft imperialism" based on those places being in debt to the Chinese, so that needs to be considered, too.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

It shouldn’t have been a surprise to see Ukraine struggle to go on the offensive when they were being asked to employ combined arms manoeuvre without air support. It certainly wasn’t through a lack of willingness from Ukraine, it was more on the failure of the West to give them the tools to do the job. Also, switching off the intelligence support is hardly going to help with their difficulties either. For all of the struggles that they are having in Kursk, they are having some tactical successes near Pokrovsk and so they are very much still in the game. The frontline is not collapsing, although Trump is doing his best to change that.

 

As for predictability, is it not predictable that the world will become a more dangerous place when the US is prepared to sell out countries to a stronger aggressor state? We are already see some pulling out of conventions on the use of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, is this likely to encourage nuclear arms proliferation? My point is that you seem to be ignoring the consequences of the US position in favour of getting this ended now on terms friendly to Russia. I’m pretty sure Taiwan are watching this with great interest.

What I want to happen and what is happening are two different things.

 

Also nobody knows what a tolerable outcome actually will be. There’s a lot of chest thumping and scare mongering at the moment. Nobody truly knows if it’s justified. All this talk of Putin’s grand plans are guesswork, Russia academics like Mark Galeotti think that Putin doesn’t really have grand plans, rather he’s just an opportunist. 

Edited 8 March by Lionator

[blabyboy]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed.

 

People can say what they like about the Chinese governmental method (and a lot of it may well be true), but on this matter they're setting the trend that the world really needs to follow.

 

They're also exporting the tech to other places, as well. However, that also does carry the risk of a form of "soft imperialism" based on those places being in debt to the Chinese, so that needs to be considered, too.

It is the 'Belt and Road' policy they have successfully deployed in Africa, but with a twist of focusing on what are the important elements of the countries in the area of concentration.

 

Basic Mercantilist approach.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, blabyboy said:

It is the 'Belt and Road' policy they have successfully deployed in Africa, but with a twist of focusing on what are the important elements of the countries in the area of concentration.

 

Basic Mercantilist approach.

They certainly do seem eager to trade.

 

When it comes to energy infrastructure though, the methods don't bother me as much as the solution, for the rather simple reason that the penalty for not applying the solution is in all likelihood worse than any method to apply it could ever be.