a rescue really isn’t on the cards. Prisoner swap maybe, but not a rescue.
This is the reality of it.
Surely in a rescue attempt any Russian troops engaged in the rebel republics are “mercenaries”?
Figure out where they are and send in a rescue party, large enough to eradicate anything or anyone carrying a weapon in line of sight. Raze the buildings they were kept in to the ground.
Obviously without killing civilians. We’re not nazis.
Dont mean to sound harsh, but...Unfortunately this isn't an Arnie or Sylvester scenario. The idea that we could helicopter a couple of platoons of SF into a hot war zone, ID the correct building, blow away the bad guys, rescue the good guys and be home in time for tea, is merely fantasy land.
In real life the helicopters would probably get shot down (or breakdown, the Yanks have form with that) and even if they did make it to the target zone they'd get shot to pieces on/immediately after landing. But supposing they did actually manage to fight their way to the target building. They'd arrive to find the prisoners had been moved, or were dead.
A plan of this type wouldn't even get onto the drawing board, let alone off it. Maybe helicopters into an Afghan village at dead of night to seize/illegally kill a couple of perps, but into a fully weaponised 20th century war zone? No chance.
As said above, the reality is that those prisoners are at best negotiating chips and at worst not long for this planet. The Russians (for it is they) have no desire to play by any rules other than what they fancy at any given time. They'll hang onto them for as long as they think that they can get political advantage and when they think they can't They'll off them in an attempt to put domestic pressure on our govt for not doing more to save them.
In that context, I suspect someone's getting disciplined/imprisoned/disappeared for the death of Paul Urey as it doesn't seem to confer any strategic benefit to tye Russians
Too far to the center, even left. Putting 40,000+ fully supported troops in before this drags on any further would be more effective in future. I doubt we will get the captured troops back. Particularly those illegally deported to Russia. Let alone the asses of Ukrainian women and children trafficked to to the far reaches of peasant villages.
There are some times when I sound right wing, and this is one of them. Figure out where they are and send in a rescue party, large enough to eradicate anything or anyone carrying a weapon in line of sight. Raze the buildings they were kept in to the ground.
More seriously*, ive seen a few posts around where people have claimed Russia have simply made up for lost sales to the west elsewhere, but ive never actually seen that followed up with evidence. Does anyone have access to some credible numbers that can be verified? And I mean in terms of volumes, not value.
The Saudis are doing the oil equivelent of money laundering for them.
Importing now discounted Russian fuel oil for their domestic power generation needs whilst exporting more of their crude to the west. Their imports are up something mad like 50% on last year.
US has approved funding for training of Ukrainian pilots in F15/16 = more bad news for Putin!
The Saudis are doing the oil equivelent of money laundering for them.
Is that why Biden had to go over and doff his cap to bonesaw man?
US has approved funding for training of Ukrainian pilots in F15/16 = more bad news for Putin!
The Senate’s version of the defense authorization bill isn’t expected to be voted on until September at the earliest, after which the conference committee will work to reach an agreement between the two chambers on compromise legislation
It's good news but..
The reality is that this is a bi-partisan bill that at this stage has only been approved by the House of Representatives. To become enactable it then needs to get through the Senate and finally needs to get to Biden. So back end of this year at the earliest (if the Yanks are anything to go by) for it to be approved, and then months to put an actual.program together and maybe 6 months from that to get to a stage where there are fully trained pilots qualifying. And that's not forgetting that the Ukrainians don't currently have the aircraft in question, nor the support infrastructure needed to keep them in the air.
If this comes to fruition by this time next year I'd be surprised. More likely that the US agrees to sell some F16s to the Poles and they ship their MIGs to Ukraine
More likely that the US agrees to sell some F16s to the Poles and they ship their MIGs to Ukraine
I read the article and assumed this is about future sales of US jets to countries that have traditionally bought from Russia...
Jens Stoltenberg (NATO) to MEPs
https://twitter.com/NATO/status/1548994505118031873
What's the story there. Who is he specifically speaking to?
What’s the story there. Who is he specifically speaking to?
This bit might hold a clue.
Jens Stoltenberg (NATO) to MEPs
Presumably its from this scheduled debate
This bit might hold a clue.
Jens Stoltenberg (NATO) to MEPs
Would be nice to narrow down that from a number a wee bit less than 705 people. Would be interested in know the people he is specifically speaking to. Particularly the ones pushing back and not so supportive.
Some of our European partners (Germany, France, Italy) are more ambivalent than us when it comes to supporting Ukraine. Not least because they're more hooked on Russian oil and/or gas. Russians are certainly betting on resolve weakening, particularly as we move into Autumn and winter, by which time the impact of cost of living and fuel crises will likely be considerably worse than they are now. There's a good article in the New York Times about Russian strategy. Its behind a pay wall but I'll cut and paste it
@seosamh
I believe this is what youre after
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_197902.htm
I dont think youll find a neat summwry of positions unfortunately
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197904.htm
Cheers piemonster. Yeah FM would be good to read that.
Thing is with Putin. I don't think he really has a grand plan as opposed to just being reactionary to event, I've flirted between both idea tbh. (I hear people shout fascism all the time, but I've also heard him described as a reactionary tyrant, which rings more true to me) He's mentioned that himself that plans change. So it'll be interesting to see how the ft assess the current overall strategy for the war and beyond. He has given himself monumental challenges on the home front.
I listened to him at the st Petersburg summit the other week. Fairly rambling tbh. But he's obviously looking for investment and interaction from other countries. He'd like his own EU I think, rather than a recreation of the Soviet Union.
The piece below is from the New York Times. Author is a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is a Russia expert. Its quite long, but is behind a paywall so I cut and paste it. Some interesting insight:
"Everything is going according to plan.
That’s the line from President Vladimir Putin. The war in Ukraine, in its fifth month and with no end in sight, may be grueling. But senior Kremlin officials keep repeating that Russia, gaining the upper hand in Ukraine’s east, will achieve all its goals. That might seem hard to believe. After all, Russia has been forced to retreat from Kyiv, experienced several military reversals, faced sanctions on an unprecedented scale and been subjected to a chorus of international condemnation. To call such a litany of difficulties and outright failures a success may be to court the charge of propaganda, hypocrisy or even self-delusion.
But it’s what the Kremlin seems to believe. Over two decades I have closely followed Mr. Putin’s words, behavior and decisions, forming a comprehensive picture of the president’s calculations. Based on his public rhetoric and policy moves and informal discussions with insiders, I have been able to work out — as far as is possible — the contours of the Kremlin’s current thinking. What is very clear is that in late May, the Kremlin came to the firm conclusion that it is winning this conflict in the long run. And Mr. Putin, in contrast to the early chaotic months, now has a clear plan.
Consisting of three main dimensions, the plan is a kind of strategic Russian doll. Each aspect fits within another, amounting to a grand scheme that goes far beyond Ukraine yet centers on it. It may sound extremely fanciful, and it certainly reveals how divorced from reality — to put it mildly — Mr. Putin is. But it’s important for the West, whose response has wavered between confrontation and acquiescence, to understand the full scope of Mr. Putin’s hopes as it continues to assess its role in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression.</p>
The smallest, most pragmatic and achievable goal concerns Russia’s territorial ambitions in Ukraine. Having failed to advance much further into Ukrainian territory since the first few days of war, Russia promptly downsized its ambitions, relinquishing the idea of taking Kyiv. The current, more realistic goal appears to be control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions — which the Kremlin sees itself attaining in a matter of time, a view seemingly vindicated by Russian forces’ effective capture of the Luhansk region — and the land corridor that would secure access to Crimea. For this goal, of minimal geopolitical weight for the Kremlin, Mr. Putin appears to believe that time is on his side. You can see why. Western military support has shown its limits, while Washington has signaled that it is not prepared to risk invoking Mr. Putin’s wrath by crossing any red lines. His earlier threats to resort to nuclear weapons seem to have been heeded: The West will not directly intervene, nor will it assist Ukraine to a point that could lead to Russian military defeat. Today, for all the protestations to the contrary, the conventional wisdom in the West is that Ukraine will not be able to win back the areas occupied by Russian troops. The Kremlin appears to believe that sooner or later the West will abandon that idea completely. Ukraine’s east would then effectively be under Russian control.
The next goal appears to be focused on forcing Kyiv to capitulate. This isn’t about the occupied territories; it’s about the future of Ukraine’s remaining territory — something that has far more geopolitical importance. On a practical level, capitulation would mean Kyiv accepting Russian demands that could be summarized as the “de-Ukrainianization” and “Russification” of the country. That would entail criminalizing the support of national heroes, renaming streets, rewriting history books and guaranteeing the Russian-speaking population a dominant position in education and culture. The aim, in short, would be to deprive Ukraine of the right to build its own nation. The government would be replaced, the elites purged and cooperation with the West voided. This second goal sounds fantastical, of course. But for Mr. Putin it is also seemingly inevitable, though it may take longer to achieve. In one to two years, by which point the Kremlin expects Ukraine to be exhausted by the war, unable to function normally and profoundly demoralized, the conditions for capitulation will ripen. At that stage, the Kremlin’s calculation appears to be, the elite will split and an opposition seeking to end the war will coalesce to oust the Zelensky administration. There’d be no need for Russia to capture Kyiv militarily; it would fall of its own accord. Mr. Putin apparently sees nothing that could prevent it.
There is much discussion over what is truly more important for Mr. Putin in his war: stopping NATO from expanding to Russia’s doorstep, or his imperial ambitions to enlarge Russia’s territory and annex at least part of Ukraine. But the two issues are intertwined. As Ukraine slid toward NATO and the conflict in the Donbas hit a stalemate, Mr. Putin became ever more obsessed with the country. He saw the land he believes historically belongs to Russia being brought to heel by Russia’s worst enemy. As a response, Ukraine’s territory became a target alongside — but not instead of, as many think — the confrontation with NATO.
That brings us to Mr. Putin’s third strategic goal in the war against Ukraine, and the most geopolitically important of them all: building a new world order. We are used to thinking that Mr. Putin sees the West as a hostile force that aims to destroy Russia. But I believe that for Mr. Putin there are two Wests: a bad one and a good one. The “bad West” is represented by the traditional political elites that currently rule Western countries: Mr. Putin appears to view them as narrow-minded slaves of the electoral cycle who overlook genuine national interests and are incapable of strategic thinking. The “good West” consists of ordinary Europeans and Americans who, he believes, want to have normal relations with Russia, and businesses who are eager to profit from close cooperation with their Russian counterparts.
In Mr. Putin’s thinking, apparently, the bad West is declining and doomed while the good West is slowly challenging the status quo with a raft of nationally oriented leaders, such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France and even Donald Trump in the United States, ready to break with the old order and fashion a new one. Mr. Putin believes that the war against Ukraine and all its consequences, such as high inflation and soaring energy prices, will nourish the good West and help people rise up against the traditional political establishment.
Mr. Putin’s wager appears to be that the fundamental political shifts in Western countries will in time bring about a transformed, friendly West. Russia will then be able to return to all the security demands it set out in its December ultimatum to the United States and NATO. This may seem wishful to the point of impossible. But that doesn’t stop it from being what Mr. Putin expects.
There is some good news. The very fact that the plan seems realistic to him should, in the short term, prevent any nuclear escalation. But the bad news is that sooner or later, Mr. Putin will face reality. It is in that moment, when his plans are stymied and his disappointment high, that he is likely to be most. For the West to avoid a catastrophic clash, it needs to truly understand what it’s really dealing with when it comes to Mr. Putin."
Interesting cheers funky.
Jebus, If this good west thing ever happens, just put a gun in my hand the now! 😆 Mind you I don't particularly disagree with the self interested assessment of our current leaders!
Interesting article! It leaves out hiw much effort Russia has been putting into making sure the 'good West' model comes to fruition via election tampering via social media etc
Interesting article! It leaves out hiw much effort Russia has been putting into making sure the ‘good West’ model comes to fruition via election tampering via social media etc
You're not wrong! Vlad has been a busy boy. It's not just the cunning use and exploitation of social media. It's direct and indirect funding of campaigns (Brexit) and political parties (Tories). Their money has deliberately been used to corrode our political system from the outside in and from the inside out. When the son of a senior "ex" KGB man is allowed to control one of our major media outlets and is elevated to the House of Lords against the recommendations of our own security services. You know something is a bit off. Then it turns out that as Foreign Secretary the man responsible for pushing through Lebedev's peerage had an "off the books" weekend with said ex KGB guy at his castle in Italy. The mind boggles.
Of course in America they have a law that says you have to register if you're representing a foreign interest. Not here though!
Regardless of Boris' transgressions though, with what we know now it is obvious that Putin has been preparing the ground for Ukraine for a long time. His misjudgement about going in was based in part on his perception of the success of his sowing of discord within NATO and the EU. He got that wrong, but he's still gambling that the edifice will crumble..
And as for the assassinations. In hindsight he's sending a message to anyone who counts that we'll get you, wherever you are, with any means possible.
I'm guessing that the Wikipedia editing wars aren't going Russia's way either.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1549690815651483650
That's a fairly bleak assessment isn't it?
I have this feeling that this winter in the UK and Europe will be very very tough.
I have this feeling that this winter in the UK and Europe will be very very tough.
I have a feeling that anyone in Ukraine (and plenty of other countries too) would gladly trade places. Let's face it, compared to 1940, the UK and Western Europe are suffering some minor discomfort.
The piece below is from the New York Times.
Interesting and unfortunately difficult to see how Putin's plan will not be somewhat successful.
Tbh I've wondered if the best course of action here is just to withdraw all Ukrainians from the rest of Donetsk Oblast, declare the rest of Ukraine from along the front lines NATO territory and tell Putin not an inch further.
I'm not tied to that idea in the slightest. Just wondered if it's maybe something to consider.
If Russia can invade Ukraine, why can't NATO. I know people will say nukes, but Russian doctrine doesn't really allow the launching of nukes unless the territorial integrity of Russia is at risk. Their doctrine doesn't extend to Ukraine in that sense.
I have a feeling that anyone in Ukraine (and plenty of other countries too) would gladly trade places. Let’s face it, compared to 1940, the UK and Western Europe are suffering some minor discomfort.
I think (and it's only that, I wasn't there) that perhaps history has a habit of extrapolating events and conditions to whole nations experiences.
We talk about shortages of food and supplies, but the other way to look at that is those supplies probably existed, they just suffered shortages and subsequent inflation putting them beyond the reach of the poorest. Whilst Churchill probably enjoyed a cigar at a "work event" in Downing Street.
So for a lot of people things probably are as bad as 1940. In 70 years time, if things do kick off, then schoolbooks will be written about how ordinary people were going to food banks, newspaper clippings about people choosing food Vs heating from their wages, a photograph of a petrol station forecourt with the caption that a gallon of fuel cost more than an hours wages. You can imagine the A-level history paper now, "compare these two sources 'Eon energy bill - October 2018' and 'eon energy bill - October 2022' calculate/explain/describe/contextualize/etc."
As I said before ,the answer is for NATO to realise that Ukraine are Nazis after all and invade.
The ukranians can quickly capitulate and NATO forces can rapidly occupy the non russian bits.
We can tell the Kremlin that the Nazis have been overthrown and they can **** off back home.
After a brief occupation elections can be held and zelensky can win again.
So for a lot of people things probably are as bad as 1940.
In Britain? Seriously? No, Britain in 1940 is similar to Ukraine now. London took until the 21st century for its population to regain its 1939 level.
In Britain? Seriously?
Depends, if you're in the bottom 1%?
If you're relying on food banks then that's not really any different to rationing.
The word "annexed" is coming up at the moment in regards to Crimea and Russia potentially annexing Luhansk/Donbas.
What status does this actually give these areas? There has been a wavey red border on Google Earth to the north east of Crimea for ages... If Ukraine attacks an annexed area is that an attack similar to other recognised areas of Russia?
How is annexed territory viewed by the international community?
Depends, if you’re in the bottom 1%?
Go read some of George Orwell's stuff on the misery of the 1930s. The bottom 1% back then had a pretty miserable time of it.
Honestly, does anyone really think that high energy prices and inflation now are remotely like what happened in WW2? Cities were bombed flat back then and people now think that life is tough?
How is annexed territory viewed by the international community?
It's not legally recognized. For example, Iraq "annexed" Kuwait in 1990. Didn't really work out for Iraq. Russia doesn't care about the legality side of it, they're just relying on brute force to coerce everyone to accept it.
It's a good article indeed. Worth bearing in mind that at the end of it she expresses the opinion that it will fail and that Putin will be forced to confront reality..
It does interest me whether the Ukrainians will be able to mount a successful counter attack in the South. If the Russian artillery capability is properly degraded, how much stomach will the ordinary Russian soldier have to stand and fight against well trained, well armed and highly motivated Ukrainians? After all, an army is only as strong as its weakest links..
First couple of sentences of our weekly business commentary are interesting this week. The gas shortage isn't being helped by a lack of nuclear generation in France, I think related to low river flow for cooling.
The European Union will set out emergency plans on Wednesday to reduce gas demand within months, warning countries that without deep cuts now they could struggle for fuel during winter if Russia cuts off deliveries, therefore we'll see countries racing to fill gas storages. As for the current time, UK gas prices are trading around 215pth with Russian gas flows (Nord Stream 1) likely to restart on time on Thursday after the completion of scheduled maintenance but at lower than its full capacity
highly motivated Ukrainians?
There's a danger of talking up the Ukrainians too much in that sense, they are doing great. But they aren't invincible. Exhaustion affects everyone.
Excellent interview on Nihals 5Live show this afternoon between 2-3pm. John Sweeney was promoting his book Killer in the Kremlin, which basically sets out that Putin is a serial killer (I missed that bit), a war criminal and a psychopath, which we all sort of knew in 1999 but ignored it because all the Russian money was nice.
and people now think that life is tough
Really? If you think my comment was in some way comparing high cost of living (mainly aimed at the fuel/energy crisis) to world war in this country, then have a sit down for a second. It's all relative for goodness sake.
If Russia can invade Ukraine, why can’t NATO
I think that it's against international law. You can supply materiel for self-defence and NATO is there for the defence of its members but going into UKR would be tantamount to declaring war on Russia
OTOH the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation has been ignored in various ways since it was signed and UKR refused to renew it following Crimea in 2014
If ukraine invited the invasion, I doubt there would be any law against it. Biggest considerations are the Russian reaction, and I guess countries like Turkey, but they can probably be bought off.
Tbh I’ve wondered if the best course of action here is just to withdraw all Ukrainians from the rest of Donetsk Oblast, declare the rest of Ukraine from along the front lines NATO territory and tell Putin not an inch further.
If E&W invaded the south of Scotland, would you consider it acceptable to say, "You can have that bit but don't advance beyond a line between Glasgow and Edinburgh?"
The assumption has to be that Russia won't respect the new border. Recent history shows that they didn't respect the border with Crimea, a few years later and they didn't respect the border into "mainland" UKR and so on.
Have a read into the 1938 Munich Agreement. This started with the Nazi annexation of Sudetenland and within 5 or 6 years had spread to the whole of Czechoslovakia (EDIT and most of the rest of Europe). There isn't a precedent for Russia to stop and NATO doesn't want a war with Russia
What status does this actually give these areas? There has been a wavey red border on Google Earth to the north east of Crimea for ages… If Ukraine attacks an annexed area is that an attack similar to other recognised areas of Russia?
How is annexed territory viewed by the international community?
Legally, none. Russia, Belarus, Iran and a couple of others will recognise it but that's it.
More of a problem will be the escalation risk. If Russia says 'this bit is now part of Russia and therefore protected by our nuclear umbrella' then what of attempts to retake it? What if Russia stages some sort of referendum, these areas decide to join join Russia and then Russia decides that any attempt to retake them is an invasion of Russia itself?
John Sweeney was promoting his book Killer in the Kremlin, which basically sets out that Putin is a serial killer (I missed that bit), a war criminal and a psychopath, which we all sort of knew in 1999 but ignored it because all the Russian money
Check out his podcast - Taking On Putin, a really good listen !
