However bad methanol is, it's better than their home made 'opiates'.
Krokodil originated in Russia and it's horrific.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html
If the UA can keep on pushing the ruskis back and retake a couple of other towns then maybe a settlement can be done.
Would Putin offer up decades of oil and gas to Ukraine as compensation for flattening entire towns? They could re sell on the open market to get instant capital comimg in.
Russia does not need the income as no one will sell them anything anymore.
Then all commodities have to be imported via Ukraine and there will be a special handling tax for that.
Thus increasing gdp for Ukraine, getting access to oil and gas and giving the Ukraine gov some cash to spend with eu builders willing to build towms.
So giving the ua alot more hardware isn't a bad idea at all.
Lets face it, itts unlikely after this debacle the Russian army will attempt to imvade Moldova eg. So the uk is very unlikely to need new tanks, rockets and apc
Here’s a very interesting article I read earlier about Aerorozvidka, the small unit of IT and drone operators who’ve been using hit and run tactics with drones and quads at night to disrupt the Russian convoys; it was them who stopped the 40-mile convoy in its tracks, quite literally.
Because they’re not officially part of the Ukrainian military structure, they don’t get the help they need for equipment, much of which they build themselves, so they’re crowdfunding for funds to get the parts, which are often from the US and Canada, which have export embargoes placed on what’s needed, so they have to enlist the help of friends abroad to try to get essential parts across the border.
Their Facebook page is well worth a look as well…
Maybe they could start selling merchandise to help raise funds, their unit patch is pretty cool.
That (paywalled) WSJ article : https://www.wsj.com/articles/roman-abramovich-and-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-suffer-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-11648480493
That cannot be true. If so it's a new low in Putins war and it's already at lower than a snakes belly low.
I am calling "not by the hair on Jimmy Hills chinny chin chin" on Abramovich being poisoned.
Beeb run any old shit that is on twitter these days, doesn't mean it is verified to be true.
Here’s a very interesting article I read earlier about Aerorozvidka, the small unit of IT and drone operators who’ve been using hit and run tactics with drones and quads at night to disrupt the Russian convoys; it was them who stopped the 40-mile convoy in its tracks, quite literally.
Because they’re not officially part of the Ukrainian military structure, they don’t get the help they need for equipment, much of which they build themselves, so they’re crowdfunding for funds to get the parts, which are often from the US and Canada, which have export embargoes placed on what’s needed, so they have to enlist the help of friends abroad to try to get essential parts across the border.
Their Facebook page is well worth a look as well…
Maybe they could start selling merchandise to help raise funds, their unit patch is pretty cool.
Posted 5 hours ago
My favourite story so far!
Suggestion is that it was ‘hardliners’ who want the war to continue, so may not be Putin per se. Lots of stuff appears on Twitter that never appears on the Beeb, and there is usually a delay of some hours between stuff appearing on Twitter and making it onto the Beeb, which I usually take to mean some element of verification is taking place.
I am calling “not by the hair on Jimmy Hills chinny chin chin” on Abramovich being poisoned.
Beeb run any old shit that is on twitter these days, doesn’t mean it is verified to be true.
I would suggest that it might be quite difficult for the BBC, or anyone else other than the doctors who examined them to verify that it is true. A quick glance though shows Reuters, Al Jazeera, the Washington post and probably many others reporting the same story. I'm just wondering what your inside info is that allows you to denounce the veracity of this so stridently?
I’m just wondering what your inside info is that allows you to denounce the veracity of this so stridently?
Sandra on facebook said it wasn't so.....
Beeb run any old shit that is on twitter these days, doesn’t mean it is verified to be true.
The Beeb don't run anything until they've checked two sources*, having been burned before. Hence why they are rarely first to go public with breaking news
* I don't know if Twitter and Instagram count as two sources.
If the UA can keep on pushing the ruskis back and retake a couple of other towns then maybe a settlement can be done.
I'm unconvinced the ground regained by Ukraine is as significant as some sources suggest.
The Beeb don’t run anything until they’ve checked two sources*, having been burned before. Hence why they are rarely first to go public with breaking news
* I don’t know if Twitter and Instagram count as two sources.
Seeing as the story they run isn't that Abramovich has been poisoned, but that the WSJ reported that Abramovich has been poisoned, Then all they have to verify is that the WSJ published the story.
And I am not making excuses for Putin or any of that shit, just that this story pinged my credibility meter. I think it far more likely that Abramovich just wants to paint himself as a victim, due to the impact sanctions are having on him, and hope he can get sympathy from western governments. And lets face it the WSJ is embedded journalism for billionaires and oligarchs.
Beeb run any old shit that is on twitter these days, doesn’t mean it is verified to be true.
Easy to say, when you don't have to verify anything
I think it far more likely that Abramovich just wants to paint himself as a victim, due to the impact sanctions are having on him, and hope he can get sympathy from western governments.
He is insignificant in the current situation. Only one person decides and that's Putin and Russia.
Only one person decides and that’s Putin and Russia.
That's 144,000,000 people!
Only one person decides and that’s Putin
and Russia.
FTFY
Would Putin offer up decades of oil and gas to Ukraine as compensation for flattening entire towns? They could re sell on the open market to get instant capital comimg in.
Russia does not need the income as no one will sell them anything anymore.
I think, deep down - what has driven Putin to the position he's in is he's embarrassed by Ukraine. Ukrainians - post break up of the USSR enjoy a much better quality of life the Russians do - and given that Putin has been leader for 2/3rds of time - thats largely his fault. Russia has been stagnating while all former Warsaw Pact countries blossom - as for not needing the income? A third of its economy comes from exports.
Making things worse in Ukraine is the whole point - if he wanted Ukraine to be a valuable asset to Russia he wouldn't be reducing it to rubble - this isn't empire building its spite. When this is over he's not going to play a part in making reparations - making things better - the whole point is to make things worse.
Putin previously used polonium on British soil
A poison that uniquely left a trail that could & would be traced back to Russia
I dont think there's anything out I f bounds on that front for Putin
I don't think Putin planned to flatten cities, he thought he could just change the regime and reap the rewards. But the inability to climb down and lose face has led him down this road and here we are. His pride is worth more to him than thousands of lives.
I don’t think Putin planned to flatten cities
It's exactly what they did in Grozny. Twice.
I think, deep down – what has driven Putin to the position he’s in is he’s embarrassed by Ukraine. Ukrainians – post break up of the USSR enjoy a much better quality of life the Russians do – and given that Putin has been leader for 2/3rds of time – thats largely his fault. Russia has been stagnating while all former Warsaw Pact countries blossom – as for not needing the income? A third of its economy comes from exports.
Nothing to do with that. Ukraine can be as rich as they want just like Finland or Sweden.
The red line is that Putin said it during the 2008 Bucharest summit no more further NATO expansion to the east but the world took him for a joke. He even spoke to the press but they just gave him the bemused look.
When NATO chipped away the smaller nations, Putin let them be but with Ukraine that's entirely a different story.
molgrips
I don’t think Putin planned to flatten cities, ...
He will flatten as many cities as he can with no chance of Ukraine becoming a functioning nation in order to create his buffer zone.
Nothing to do with that. Ukraine can be as rich as they want just like Finland or Sweden.
The red line is that Putin said it during the 2008 Bucharest summit no more further NATO expansion to the east but the world took him for a joke. He even spoke to the press but they just gave him the bemused look.
When NATO chipped away the smaller nations, Putin let them be but with Ukraine that’s entirely a different story.
The key thing that Putin said is that he doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country, he thinks it's part of Russia. What enraged him was that Ukrainian's turned away from Russia and wanted closer ties with the EU. This happened because most Ukrainians do not want to be part of a gangster state.
NATO did not "chip away" at anything. Countries asked to join NATO. That's because they were afraid of Russia because of its long history of barbaric treatment of its neighbours.
https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1507373671412903944
I think this thread is perhaps for chewie:
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1508562171759939591
Putin reacted not when Ukraine talked about NATO membership but when they talk about EU membership, happened in 2004 after the orange revolution when Russia tried (& failed) to rig the election because he didn't want pro EU Yukashenko to win, happened again when Yukashenko actually moved them toward EU membership and Putin had him poisoned.
And then when Yanukovich became president and tried to pivot away from the EU, Putin was so outraged at the euro maiden revolution that he invaded Donetsk & Luhansk
Putin sees Ukraine as a province of Russia, he couldn't stand the thought of it getting all the benefits and freedoms of EU membership
The NATO line is just propaganda for the easily led
Its parts of 'his Russia' as prosperous free democracies in the EU he fears
NATO did not “chip away” at anything. Countries asked to join NATO. That’s because they were afraid of Russia because of its long history of barbaric treatment of its neighbours.
Of course they have to be afraid of Russia coz they have nukes, but Russia let them go as they are not strategically important and could easily be nuked.
Yes, NATO (EU as well) is chipping away to the east and if they have some respect for Russia they would not have done that.
Doesn't matter now coz that's history. Now it is a matter of how to not escalate the war/conflict/special operation whatever further.
We will only learn when it is too late and when many are vaporised, those who survive will starve and regret but that's too late.
At the moment we are slowly moving towards a nuclear war if NATO/EU does not back off.
The key thing that Putin said is that he doesn’t believe Ukraine is a real country, he thinks it’s part of Russia. What enraged him was that Ukrainian’s turned away from Russia and wanted closer ties with the EU. This happened because most Ukrainians do not want to be part of a gangster state.
Doesn't matter whether Ukraine is or is not a real country. Putin/Russia does NOT tolerate NATO in Ukraine and Ukraine has to realise that. This is the red line and Putin/Russia is fighting for their way of life.
he NATO line is just propaganda for the easily led
A very simple fact. Ukraine has no say in this matter. They are better off being "neutral". Even pretending to be siding Russia is better than totally flatten.
If EU is foolish enough to provoke the matter further they will have a rude awakening when the real war starts with NATO and Russia. Unlike all the previous wars, this will truly be a devastating war which I hope I don't have to witness.
But judging from some of the arguments regarding 19th and 20th century people, it looks someone will have to learn the lesson very hard with no return.
If Ukraine is “not a country”, why doesn’t Putin bring this up at the UN? Where does this annihilation of independent countries, and their right to sign up to international organisations as a free state, begin and end? Why can Ukraine be an UN country, but not join up to any other transnational body?
At the moment we are slowly moving towards a nuclear war if NATO/EU does not back off.
Back off to where? Should RF also back off? You’re a bit one sided with this.
They are better off being “neutral”.
Neutral in what way? Sweden and Finland don’t describe themselves as neutral countries any more. If you’re talking nuclear armament, or aggressive military capability, then that’s fair enough, but if you mean bunker down and don’t form trading and political relationships with any country to the West of it… that’s a slow death instead of a fast death if Ukraine is forced down that path. Especially if the routes South are cut off as part of “New Russia” in a land grab deal.
Back off to where? You’re a bit one sided with this.
Tell Russia that Ukraine will not become part of Russia and concede the negotiation. Yes, that sounds like NATO's ego taking a knock but think of it this way. What not cut the loss? Unless you are suggesting that NATO's ego is so strong that they Must win? If so then be prepared to fight to the end which I foresee only very few standing and even that no one is winning because both sides will be so damage they are starving.
Neutral in what way? Sweden and Finland don’t describe themselves as neutral countries any more.
They are not NATO member yet and besides they are not as strategic as Ukraine.
That doesn’t answer my questions.
If Ukraine isn’t a country, why is Putin not concerned about their membership of the UN (a founding member no less)?
Where should the EU back off to? What does that mean?
Where should NATO back off to? What does that mean?
When you say “neutral”, what do you mean? And which country could that be modelled on?
Your replies might make more a sense if NATO and/or the EU had gone to war with Russia, even if in defence of Ukraine. They haven’t. Russia has invaded Ukraine (again) and that invasion is being resisted by the people of that country.
That doesn’t answer my questions.
All western logic or perspectives or laws etc does not apply.
Russia will hammer Ukraine into submission whether they like it or not.
Russia will apply force to make Ukraine submit.
Ukraine is to be subservient to Russia/Putin.
Ukraine has No say whatsoever and must agree.
This is a nuclear power nation beating the neigbour blue black into submission.
This is No domestic politics.
This is real.
And what is it you want NATO and the EU to do? Make Ukraine surrender? Not mobilise troops in countries that border Ukraine to defend them in case they might be next?
Where do you want them to back off to?
Ukraine is to be subservient to Russia/Putin.
Is that your answer to what being a “neutral” country means for Ukraine?
And what is it you want NATO and the EU do?
NATO/EU should ask what Russia wants and give them. i.e. Russian's condition.
Ukraine will object but then they are in a tight spot they can hardly get out.
I am sure Russia will comply (stop) and let the people rebuild.
Russia is Not going to expand West put it this way.
Make Ukraine surrender? Not mobilise troops in countries that border Ukraine to defend them in case they might be next?
Yes, Ukraine needs to surrender. i.e. dismantle their defense / arm forces infrastructure.
Countries border Ukraine can arm themselves to the hilt so long as the buffer zone is not crossed.
Then we can all live another day in this life a bit longer until the next mother of all wars.
Where do you want them to back off to?
No more NATO along Russia boarder unless with Russia's consent.
Is that your answer to what being a “neutral” country means for Ukraine?
Not to join NATO forever.
No arm forces infrastructure.
No more NATO along Russia boarder unless with Russia’s consent.
Back to this again… NATO has always bordered Russia. What you are asking for is that European countries should disarm, which is now the furthest thing from the mind of any country bordering Russia or Belarus.
And again, you’re very one sided on this. Russia can have troops up to the border of other countries (and even invade them) but you’re all about how the rest of Europe must lay down its defences and lay on a welcoming buffet?!?
Back to this again… NATO has always bordered Russia. What you are asking for is that European countries should disarm, which is now the furthest thing from the mind of any country bordering Russia or Belarus.
Yes, some of the smaller NATO nations are but Ukraine is not the same.
Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia and NATO/EU knows that but just pretend not to know.
And again, you’re very one sided on this. Russia can have troops up the to border of other countries (and even invade them) but you’re all about how the test of Europe must lay down it’s defences and lay on a welcoming buffet?!?
Of course it is one sided because you need to have one side stand down otherwise you will have a full nuclear war.
If NATO/EU does a preemptive strike even with a conventional weapon, all sides will be in deep poo poo. No one will come out claiming victory other than feeling regret.
How do you want NATO and/or the EU to “stand down”? They haven’t engaged, haven’t invaded, haven’t even threatened to.
You are arguing for the abandonment of defence as a response to the threat of invasion. The opposite will happen. European countries will now take the threat from Russia more seriously, and will, sadly, have to increase their spending and attention on military defence. It’s all a big step backwards, instigated by one man.
How do you want NATO and/or the EU to “stand down”? They haven’t engaged, haven’t invaded, haven’t even threatened to.
Ukraine needs to stand down.
NATO/EU stops the arms supply.
You are arguing for the abandonment of defence as a response to the threat of invasion. The opposite will happen. European countries will now take the threat form Russia more seriously, and will, sadly, increase their spending and attention on military defence.
For a start Ukraine stand down then take it from there to deescalate.
As far as past evidence is concerned Russia has not invaded a single NATO nation. Will never because they (Russia) will be defeated and they know that.
NATO/EU should ask what Russia wants and give them. i.e. Russian’s condition.
Ukraine will object but then they are in a tight spot they can hardly get out.
OK, say this happens, Putin gets Ukraine, either as part of Russia or as a puppet state or whatever.
Then he decides that he would quite Poland too
NATO/EU should ask what Russia wants and give them. i.e. Russian’s condition.
Poland will object but then they are in a tight spot they can hardly get out.
Then he decides that he want East Germany....
.
This is the problem with appeasement.
With hindsight we should have done what we are doing now in terms of sanctions and supplying weapons when he invaded Crimea, but it's too late for that now we are where we are. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
It's all very well saying give him what he wants but the people in Lithuania and Latvia sound much less keen on that idea!
Then he decides that he would quite Poland too
NATO/EU should ask what Russia wants and give them. i.e. Russian’s condition.
Poland will object but then they are in a tight spot they can hardly get out.
Then he decides that he want East Germany….
No, as far as I know I do not see that happening. Will Not happen unless provoke.
Russia has no capacity nor ability to full scale invasion nor are they silly enough to trigger a nuclear war because of Poland and they know it. Putin/Russia is not that foolish.
This is the problem with appeasement.
With hindsight we should have done what we are doing now in terms of sanctions and supplying weapons when he invaded Crimea, but it’s too late for that now we are where we are. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
In hindsight US should not even arm Ukraine (Trump actually supplied arms to Ukraine according to some sources). Ukraine should Not even be encouraged at all.
It’s all very well saying give him what he wants but the people in Lithuania and Latvia sound much less keen on that idea!
Small countries and not really a strategic importance, hence Russia/Putin let them go.
No, as far as I know I do not see that happening. Will Not happen unless provoke.
Russia has no capacity nor ability to full scale invasion nor are they silly enough to trigger a nuclear war because of Poland and they know it. Putin/Russia is not that foolish
What hes doing in Ukraine wasn't provoked either. Yes, I know he's coming up with all sorts of 'justifications' about NATO expansion and Nazis and god knows what else but they are just for public consumption, Putin knows as well as anyone (who isn't being fed a diet solely consisting of Russian state media) that it was totally unprovoked, but he obviously can't say that, he needs a justification for his land grab
And Putin won't need a big army to take another country if we let him have Ukraine, all that shows is that he needs to threaten nuclear war and he gets his own way. We then either let him have whatever he wants or we call his bluff.
I am not in Ukraine and so it's pretty easy for me to say, but Ukraine has to be the place where a stand is made. Its too little too late but not drawing a line here is much, much worse.
At the moment we are slowly moving towards a nuclear war if NATO/EU does not back off.
NATO and the EU are not in the war, it's between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its survival as a nation and the Ukrainians are not going to disarm and surrender.
NATO, the EU, and Ukraine did not start this, they did not attack Russia. Russia attacked Ukraine. The only country that needs to back off is Russia. What sort of twisted logic leads you to believe that the responsibility to end this rests with the victim of aggression?
What hes doing in Ukraine wasn’t provoked either.
Ukraine is a strategic importance.
And Putin won’t need a big army to take another country if we let him have Ukraine, all that shows is that he needs to threaten nuclear war and he gets his own way. We then either let him have whatever he wants or we call his bluff.
No, Putin is not that foolish to trigger such war nor does he want Poland (already in NATO).
I am not in Ukraine and so it’s pretty easy for me to say, but Ukraine has to be the place where a stand is made. Its too little too late but not drawing a line here is much, much worse.
Yes, taking a stand is the right thing to do but in this case Ukraine is standing on Russian/Putin's foot. Yes, take a stand but not standing on others foot.
NATO and the EU are not in the war, it’s between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its survival as a nation and the Ukrainians are not going to disarm and surrender.
Ukraine is Not going to survive. Better to become a puppet state than no place to call home.
NATO, the EU, and Ukraine did not start this, they did not attack Russia. Russia attacked Ukraine. The only country that needs to back off is Russia. What sort of twisted logic leads you to believe that the responsibility to end this rests with the victim of aggression?
Doesn't matter whether Ukraine started this or not. Living next to a nuclear power means they need to consider the views of the nuclear power before deciding.
(Trump actually supplied arms to Ukraine according to some sources).
IIRC the US did supply some weapons early in Trump's term but then stopped later on when they refused to frame Joe Biden's son for corruption.
[Edit] Wikipedia appears to know more than I do on the subject https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
