By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Posted with some trepidation as I know Clive doesn’t like multis. Understandably overlooked by the national media, but it seems like the Russians are completely caving in, rope-a-doped as effectively as von Paulus in 1942. Who knows what this might lead to?
I've been very surprised by Russia's decision to invade as they're not going to win the war in a conventional sense, which begs the question - what is a positive outcome from their perspective?
Is it simply about destabilising the region? Or, as you say bringing about negotiations where by they're effectively 'rewarded' for starting a war?
I think ultimately Putin genuinely believed Ukraine didn't want Zelesnky's Government, would welcome the Russians as liberators, and he could turn it into being like Belarus is, "independent" but in reality under his thumb.
I think ultimately Putin genuinely believed Ukraine didn't want Zelesnky's Government, would welcome the Russians as liberators, and he could turn it into being like Belarus is, "independent" but in reality under his thumb.
And yet Putin doesn't seem to realise that as an Independent State, it's up to the people of Ukraine to vote in or out whoever they please.
It's all a smokescreen. One big land-grab and trying to revert things back to CCCP. Everything they say is BS. A ballistic missile landed near the nuclear power plant the other week and it was clear from examining it's trajectory etc that it came from Russian held territory. "No", said the Russian person overseeing the plant. "It came from Ukraine territory and did a u-turn then landed. I saw it myself". I mean, really, do they think people actually believe that schit? It's like Comical Ali all over again.
Then, we had that situation where one of Putin's close advisors narrowly missed out on being killed in a car bomb a few weeks ago but his daughter was. There are a number of things that don't add up. 1) He and his daughter were meant to be leaving the festival together but he had a gut feeling something wasn't right so he chose to go in another car. Yet he was 'happy' to let his daughter carry on driving the very same car he thought might get blown up? I mean, who the fk does that? if you feel odd you make sure you go in two other completely different cars. He effectively condemned, or was at least willing to, his daughter to death.
2) The Russians said the case was 'proved' within two days of it happening. They said the lady car bomber was known to them for ages. She lived in the same apartment block as his daughter and she drove the same Mini car but often with different plates. They knew something was up but didn't do anything about it? Unless topping the daughter was the plan all along and can blame it on the Ukrainians? Even if not, to not prevent it when they were so sure about the imminent danger is staggering.
I think Biden's comment on the first day of invasion is proving prescient - 'Putin has badly miscalculated'. He has, and following this week's events I've been thinking for the first time that his downfall has begun, even if the end won't be any time soon (although such situations can change very rapidly). The military failures will inevitably lead to his losing grip and authority on top of resentment that will be building due to sanctions and the loss of Russian status globally.
I've been very surprised by Russia's decision to invade as they're not going to win the war in a conventional sense, which begs the question - what is a positive outcome from their perspective?
Is it simply about destabilising the region? Or, as you say bringing about negotiations where by they're effectively 'rewarded' for starting a war?
I dunno if you were hoping for an answer from me, but the best I can offer (stolen from people who know better than me) is that it's changed.
The scale and direction of the original attacks only make sense as a complete takeover, which fits with a long essay Putin wrote last year over how Ukrainians are all Russians really. As you say it's now clear they're not going to win but the theory is (again based on the way they attacked) that they thought they'd be welcomed in the east, the army would collapse, and they'd be in Kyiv within 3 days (maybe after having grabbed Zelenskiy with snatch squads).
Once it was obvious they'd miscalculated Putin said it was all about saving Russians in the Donbas region from Nazis and it became about taking over that territory, plus the bits in the south they'd already grabbed and which usefully link to the Crimea. If they could get that, run referendums which they could fix, then they would cut a deal.
Now they've lost a chunk of that and it increasingly looks like the rest will follow so I don't think there is any positive outcome available. But they might think they can still hold the land bridge to Crimea which before the war would have looked like a good win. But I don't believe they can hold it.
I personally feel the destabilization argument holds up. I'm not entirely convinced the aim was to take over Ukraine was the ultimate aim. Securing the land from north to south was I think one aim and then controlling all the ports in the south east the other. It feels like the whole thing has been designed to hold the world's food and energy to ransom was the main intention and leverage off that. To a degree it has worked to destabilize so much of the west and cause anarchy. The big problem is that although they counted on NATO not stepping in I don't think they counted on such a huge military financial backing for Ukraine to fight back. Unfortunately, early on some of those weapons got 'lost' on their way to the front but now we are seeing a huge influx of very high tech weaponry and Russia, for now has no answer. But I think that the idea of a Dr Evil style plan to hold the world's food and energy resources to ransom was perhaps the main aim.
Saying all that I think we can get a point at least tonight at the Den!
I’ve often felt the Russia - North Korea relationship could be more telling than has been presented. It could be a way for China to become involved indirectly in Ukraine war, by providing weapons to Russia through NK.
It doesn’t look great whichever way you look at it although Russia not being completely isolated may not be such a bad thing in terms of nuclear threat.
I've taken this video from the Queens coffin thread.
So if yesterday was such a great opportunity to nuke London/Britain, why didn't they do it?
All mouth.
I'm not sure if the other studio guests, particularly the younger looking one who mentioned we have nuclear capability too, looked shocked or were in agreement? Although the lady presenter is a nut-job too, looking all happy with herself saying everyone could have got taken out in one go.
It's like pissing in the wind. Churchill mooted dropping Anthrax on Berlin but was dissuaded since retaliation in kind was a distinct possibility. The West could easily adopt the tactic during Moscow's May Day parade,but didn't.
Russia know they have created for themselves a complete shît show and even the Chinese look like they are beginning to distance themselves along with India. The Ukrainians have really got the bit between their teeth and I suspect they will show little mercy as they start to overrun the disorganised rabble that is the Russian army.
I’ve often felt the Russia - North Korea relationship could be more telling than has been presented. It could be a way for China to become involved indirectly in Ukraine war, by providing weapons to Russia through NK.
It doesn’t look great whichever way you look at it although Russia not being completely isolated may not be such a bad thing in terms of nuclear threat.
I read somewhere that Chinese artillery is a slightly different calibre to Russia’s hence no sale. I can’t believe China would happily trust the DPRK with anything valuable, they wouldn’t know where it might end up.
I'm posting this not because I'm anti West, pro Putin, or any of the other things the usual suspects will say. I can live with a handful of downvotes from basement dwelling losers.
I am posting this because I love my country and don't want to see it's people die in a nuclear war because clueless careerists who'll be first in the bunker with no skin in the game can't keep their mouths shut.
We are saying the exact same thing this side of the pond as Gurulyov, albeit less bombastically.
If it's good enough for Social Democrats to say, of course it will empower a mad Russian nationalist to say it.
We need to end the double standards before we can position ourselves as the righteous actors in this conflict.
I'm posting this not because I'm anti West, pro Putin, or any of the other things the usual suspects will say. I can live with a handful of downvotes from basement dwelling losers.
I am posting this because I love my country and don't want to see it's people die in a nuclear war because clueless careerists who'll be first in the bunker with no skin in the game can't keep their mouths shut.
We are saying the exact same thing this side of the pond as Gurulyov, albeit less bombastically.
If it's good enough for Social Democrats to say, of course it will empower a mad Russian nationalist to say it.
We need to end the double standards before we can position ourselves as the righteous actors in this conflict.
“I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that.” She added: “I’m ready to do that.”
This a stock answer from every Prime Minister and most opposition leaders (apart from Corbyn).
The bit the reporter missed out was John Pienaar saying to her "you'd be ushered into a room and in front of you will be the letters of last resort." These outline a response to Britain being attacked by nuclear weapons... so the answer was meant to act as a deterrent not an act of aggression. Guruluov's comments were 100% aggressive.
I'm posting this not because I'm anti West, pro Putin, or any of the other things the usual suspects will say. I can live with a handful of downvotes from basement dwelling losers.
I am posting this because I love my country and don't want to see it's people die in a nuclear war because clueless careerists who'll be first in the bunker with no skin in the game can't keep their mouths shut.
We are saying the exact same thing this side of the pond as Gurulyov, albeit less bombastically.
If it's good enough for Social Democrats to say, of course it will empower a mad Russian nationalist to say it.
We need to end the double standards before we can position ourselves as the righteous actors in this conflict.
When you say "a little more Bombastically", that's the understatement of the year.
"When Britain is reduced to a Martian Desert" "What do they call it - the unshakable island? We'd shake it up"
Compared to "if they destroy our nation, of course I'd hit the button"
What sort of comparison is that?
There is a huge difference between saying, "why would we bomb Ukraine when we have to live there, we should bomb Britain instead" and "if attacked, we'll hit the button" isn't there?
Of course we should never do it and they should never deploy these things and the world would be a much better place if everyone got on and there was no need, but people don't get on, so what you gonna do? Pop round for a nice cuppa and talk sense?
The world is horrible sometimes which is why we need these horrible things.
Sorry, for all Truss' apparent shortcomings, what else should she have said?
“I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that.” She added: “I’m ready to do that.”
This a stock answer from every Prime Minister and most opposition leaders (apart from Corbyn).
The bit the reporter missed out was John Pienaar saying to her "you'd be ushered into a room and in front of you will be the letters of last resort." These outline a response to Britain being attacked by nuclear weapons... so the answer was meant to act as a deterrent not an act of aggression. Guruluov's comments were 100% aggressive.
That is plenty enough for Russian media and hostile forces in the Duma to use as justification. Scale is irrelevant.
We should be talking it all down. It’s not a very good deterrent is it as 20% of Ukraine is on fire. We’ve playing this game with Russia for 300 years with the same results.
When you say "a little more Bombastically", that's the understatement of the year.
"When Britain is reduced to a Martian Desert" "What do they call it - the unshakable island? We'd shake it up"
Compared to "if they destroy our nation, of course I'd hit the button"
What sort of comparison is that?
There is a huge difference between saying, "why would we bomb Ukraine when we have to live there, we should bomb Britain instead" and "if attacked, we'll hit the button" isn't there?
Of course we should never do it and they should never deploy these things and the world would be a much better place if everyone got on and there was no need, but people don't get on, so what you gonna do? Pop round for a nice cuppa and talk sense?
The world is horrible sometimes which is why we need these horrible things.
Sorry, for all Truss' apparent shortcomings, what else should she have said?
Quite, that’s the iron logic of deterrence. As one of only four countries to have given up nuclear weapons, I’m sure the Ukrainians would agree.
When you say "a little more Bombastically", that's the understatement of the year.
"When Britain is reduced to a Martian Desert" "What do they call it - the unshakable island? We'd shake it up"
Compared to "if they destroy our nation, of course I'd hit the button"
What sort of comparison is that?
There is a huge difference between saying, "why would we bomb Ukraine when we have to live there, we should bomb Britain instead" and "if attacked, we'll hit the button" isn't there?
Of course we should never do it and they should never deploy these things and the world would be a much better place if everyone got on and there was no need, but people don't get on, so what you gonna do? Pop round for a nice cuppa and talk sense?
The world is horrible sometimes which is why we need these horrible things.
Sorry, for all Truss' apparent shortcomings, what else should she have said?
She should have said,
‘No I will never deploy nuclear weapons as it will cause a global holocaust and I want to work with all Nuclear powers to reduce the global arsenal to zero. We are the 6th biggest economy in the world and we will give abiding nations favourable trade deals for compliance. I hope Russia will sit round the table over Ukraine as soon possible and we’ll talk about the historic bad behaviour of post Minsk NATO as well as Putin’s illegal invasions (plural) to seek a ceasefire as soon as possible’
'He also said 200 "hostages" would soon be exchanged between the two sides. He gave no further detail of who would be included in such a prisoner swap'
That is plenty enough for Russian media and hostile forces in the Duma to use as justification. Scale is irrelevant.
We should be talking it all down. It’s not a very good deterrent is it as 20% of Ukraine is on fire. We’ve playing this game with Russia for 300 years with the same results.
No Prime Minister in the UK will ever say "I would not retaliate if we are attacked with Nuclear weapons"...It just wont happen as that comment is an election loser. 'I'll bomb you if you bomb me' has been an unwritten rule since more than 1 country acquired nukes... It has acted as a deterrent so far.
‘No I will never deploy nuclear weapons as it will cause a global holocaust and I want to work with all Nuclear powers to reduce the global arsenal to zero. We are the 6th biggest economy in the world and we will give abiding nations favourable trade deals for compliance. I hope Russia will sit round the table over Ukraine as soon possible and we’ll talk about the historic bad behaviour of post Minsk NATO as well as Putin’s illegal invasions (plural) to seek a ceasefire as soon as possible’
Imagine.
That's far too sensible.
That's not how nuclear deterrent works though is it.. ? Crazy world.
‘No I will never deploy nuclear weapons as it will cause a global holocaust and I want to work with all Nuclear powers to reduce the global arsenal to zero. We are the 6th biggest economy in the world and we will give abiding nations favourable trade deals for compliance. I hope Russia will sit round the table over Ukraine as soon possible and we’ll talk about the historic bad behaviour of post Minsk NATO as well as Putin’s illegal invasions (plural) to seek a ceasefire as soon as possible’
Imagine.
I shudder to imagine. On your theory we may as well give up every weapon we hold and disband the armed forces. And rely on the basis of having a good old chat in front of the fire with Vlad over tea and cake. Do you honestly believe that had Ukraine had nukes that those lively, loveable, cuddly Ruskis would have invaded?
Putin invaded on the basis that Ukraine was full of neo nazis. And also on the basis of having some kind of barrier between Russia and that non-aggressive pact, we know as NATO. The reality is that this was a land grab and to protect ethnic Russians, same as Hitler did with the Sudatenland in '38. And we know what happened there with appeasement. Putin hasn't tried to invade the Baltic states, because they are part of NATO and NATO as he knows only too well would react in kind. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and strangely it has pretty much worked well since the end of WW2.
I shudder to imagine. On your theory we may as well give up every weapon we hold and disband the armed forces. And rely on the basis of having a good old chat in front of the fire with Vlad over tea and cake. Do you honestly believe that had Ukraine had nukes that those lively, loveable, cuddly Ruskis would have invaded?
Putin invaded on the basis that Ukraine was full of neo nazis. And also on the basis of having some kind of barrier between Russia and that non-aggressive pact, we know as NATO. The reality is that this was a land grab and to protect ethnic Russians, same as Hitler did with the Sudatenland in '38. And we know what happened there with appeasement. Putin hasn't tried to invade the Baltic states, because they are part of NATO and NATO as he knows only too well would react in kind. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction and strangely it has pretty much worked well since the end of WW2.
Well it's not far off, certainly it seems that you are advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament, if you are advocating that the PM of the day should declare that they would never use them?
So if Putin listened to his mate on the TV and made the UK 'Mars on earth', what would you have expected the UK governments reaction to be given that the first requirement of the PM of the UK is to protect it's people.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. I remember Labour in the seventies proposing a non nuclear defence of Europe involving a huge ditch filled with diesel to stop Soviet tanks rumbling across the German plains..
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
