Forum menu
The Black Sea Fleet has now sailed from Novorossiysk, which is outside ATACMS range but not Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russian-black-sea-fleet-grouping-leaves-the-base-in-novorossiysk/
So where is that going? From the web link it looks like freighters not warships. Heading for Georgia to pick up military hardware from Iran transported overland?
From the web link it looks like freighters not warships.
It's a stock photo according to the image credit.
A gross distortion, and a bit of an insult tbh.
Fair enough on the armchair generals comment but this thread over the past couple of years has displayed quite a bit of that. I suppose what I'm talking about is the clamour on here for more fighting, more bombs, more missiles etc being dropped on Russia. That's only going to go in one direction. The only solution to this geopolitical cluster**** is negotiations, and no one - especially on this thread - seems interested in doing that. Anyone who suggests de-escalation or negotiations is dismissed and insulted as an appeaser. This is not the 1930s, there is a huge difference between this situation and that one (the involvement of nuclear weapons for a start), so you cannot compare the two and draw the same conclusions. Seems pretty obvious to me that the solution does not lie in more military escalation, and IMO the 1930s appeasement comparisons are leading us ever closer to disaster.
PS. I see BBC are going to broadcast Threads again in October (only the 4th time it has done so in 40 years). Some people on this thread could do with watching it. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/15/threads-nuclear-apocalypse-bbc-tv-drama-40-years-on-mick-jackson-interview
Anyone who suggests de-escalation or negotiations is dismissed and insulted as an appeaser.
Can you provide one example on this thread where someone has been told that just for suggesting negotiations? One?
This war, as all others will end with negotiations. It's inevitable. I want Ukraine to negotiate from as much a position of strength as possible, so Putin isn't encouraged to rinse and repeat in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.
I see BBC are going to broadcast Threads again in October (only the 4th time it has done so in 40 years). Some people on this thread could do with watching it
I saw Threads first time around, I don't need to watch it again. I spent a significant part of the early 1980s on exercise next to the inner German border in full NBC rig, in a water filled slit trench, learning to estimate the distance and yield of tactical nuclear strikes we fully expected to come. I had no illusions about my survival if it happened and at the time it felt very much like 'when', not 'if'. I'm in no hurry to see a return to those days. IMO emboldening Putin and encouraging his imperial dreams is the fastest way to make that happen.
Can you provide one example on this thread where someone has been told that just for suggesting negotiations? One?
I've had that thrown at me many times on this thread, along with a few others who dared to stick their heads above the parapet. It's the reason I stopped posting a long time ago.
I'd still be interested to see a link to an actual example. In any case, don't stop posting. Your views are as valid as anyone else's.
I suppose what I’m talking about is the clamour on here for more fighting, more bombs, more missiles etc being dropped on Russia. That’s only going to go in one direction
I suppose that's why the thread exists; to make the point that this war won't end suddenly (on either side) in a single event. Those sorts of strategic victories haven't existed since kings rode into battle and some bloke called Richard III died in a field.
The only solution to this geopolitical cluster**** is negotiations, and no one – especially on this thread – seems interested in doing that. Anyone who suggests de-escalation or negotiations is dismissed and insulted as an appeaser.
The war is in my view at a tipping point where both sides can be convinced to take part in meaningful negotiation. At the moment Russia rarely acknowledges that it's at war with Ukraine, it's all about NATO. Until that situation changes and Russia is prepared to talk to Ukraine then you're whistling in the wind and de-escalation on one side will lead to further escalation on the other.
This is not the 1930s, there is a huge difference between this situation and that one (the involvement of nuclear weapons for a start), so you cannot compare the two and draw the same conclusions. Seems pretty obvious to me that the solution does not lie in more military escalation, and IMO the 1930s appeasement comparisons are leading us ever closer to disaster.
A better parallel is WW2. Germany's industrial war machine peaked in 1944, despite the Allies bombing the heck out of the German war machine, including well-known raids such as the "dam-busters" in 1943.
What this 1944 industrial peak doesn't tell you is what would have happened without the bombing. Would the annual industrial peaks until 1944 have been greater, would there have been an even greater peak in 1945 and beyond? How long would WW2 have continued?
We'll never know, but against the simple logic of an industrial peak, the war in Europe ended in May 1945. A few weeks after that a nuclear weapon ended the war with Japan.
Clearly, it wasn't just about industry. Despite peaking, industry couldn't supply the frontline sufficiently to make up for the losses there, which is the tipping point in Ukraine that I'm thinking about.
De-escalation for the sovereign nation of Ukraine to maintain its internationally agreed borders is the wrong thing now and won't bring this war to an early conclusion in negotiation
The only solution to this geopolitical cluster**** is negotiations,
Surely that presupposes that any negotiation that Putin takes part in, he does so with either honest or peaceful intentions? Honestly I can't see that anyone now in Ukraine would engage with the Russian state with any hope of that. To my mind this war will only stop when Putin is forced to the table because his position at homes relies on a settlement and Russia can be prevented from being a threat to it's immediate westerly neighbours in the future (like a normal country), which certainly isn't the case now.
..
To my mind this war will only stop when Putin is forced to the table because his position at homes relies on a settlement
And do we think lobbing NATO long range missiles at Moscow makes that more or less likely? We all know how populations react when they are attacked, they circle the wagons, beat the drum of patriotism and demand revenge. I think this is probably true of Russians more than anyone else. Attacking Moscow with missiles will strengthen Putin not weaken him.
Out of range of the current munitions supplied to ukaf.
The loss of life must be accelerating the demographic time bomb for Russia. Loosing around 1000 men a week of the age group you need the most willing surely have huge knock on effect over the next generation
Loosing around 1000 men a week of the age group you need the most willing surely have huge knock on effect over the next generation
They lost 9M soldiers in WW2 so they have a fair way to go.
I’ve just said you do it on purpose
Well I can hardly post accidentally can I? And who decided this thread was an opinion free zone? I mean it's clearly not because I see loads of opinions on here. You just don't like the opinions you disagree with. Anyway, my opinions haven't changed since the start of this. I said it would escalate, I said prospects of a Russian 'defeat' were fanciful, I said western naivety/arrogance would take us to the brink of war with Russia, and I said Putin wouldn't be going anywhere. I was right on all of them.
Edit: the post I was responding to was deleted. I have no idea why??
They lost 9M soldiers in WW2 so they have a fair way to go.
That was a genuine fight for survival against a full scale invasion at a time when it was the entire USSR and not just the Russians and their population was both younger and larger than it is now.
Since it was an expeditionary operation outside Russia's borders I feel a better analogy would be Afghanistan where roughly (estimates vary wildly) 26,000 dead and 53,000 wounded was enough to send them packing.
The key tipping point in 1989 was when the Elites in Moscow and St Petersburg started to see the war as futile and their enemy as implacable.
We could yet get to this point with current conflict and since the intensity is so much higher we should logically get there a fair bit quicker.
For me a huge inflection point will be if Harris wins in November, thereby assuring at least another 4 years of US support. I feel more and more that Putin has bet the house on a 2nd Trump term.
Attacking Moscow with missiles will strengthen Putin not weaken him
Ukraine has attacked military-connected installations in the Moscow region, e.g. Chkalovsky Air Base 20 miles from the City.
Ukraine targeted the Russian capital on Tuesday in its biggest drone attack so far, killing at least one and wrecking dozens of homes in the Moscow region and forcing around 50 flights to be diverted from airports around Moscow.
Russia, the world's biggest nuclear power, said it had destroyed at least 20 Ukrainian attack drones as they swarmed over the Moscow region,At least one person was killed near Moscow, Russian authorities said.
"There is no way that night time strikes on residential neighbourhoods can be associated with military action," said Peskov. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-destroys-ukraine-launched-drone-flying-towards-moscow-mayor-says-2024-09-09/
The Moscow region is more than 18,000 sq.miles. Wales is less than half that
I've included Peskov's statement for its obvious value. The report is entirely Russian comment, "There was no immediate comment from Ukraine about Tuesday's attacks. Both sides deny targeting civilians."
Since it was an expeditionary operation outside Russia’s borders
Not all of them entirely see it that way compared to Afghanistan. If you see the ukraine war as a just one, returning territory that is rightfully russian then you might be more willing to suffer for it.
The key tipping point in 1989 was when the Elites in Moscow and St Petersburg started to see the war as futile and their enemy as implacable.
Gorbachev was much, much weaker than Putin is now. You think the Russian elites who Putin has enriched and coerced are going to turn on him? Seems like more western wishful thinking to me.
PS. That was an opinion hatter posted for the benefit of DT78, and very welcome it was too 😉
Oddly enough on kuenssberg yesterday STW favourite Piers Morgan, said Trump may not be as predictable as we think and may provide more aid to Ukraine as the GOP lobby is massing against the Russia.
Not all of them entirely see it that way compared to Afghanistan. If you see the ukraine war as a just one, returning territory that is rightfully russian then you might be more willing to suffer for it.
Gorbachev was much, much weaker than Putin is now.
Both true, which is why this time it will take far greater losses than the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict, they managed to create roughly 79,000 Russian casualties over a decade, the Ukrainians are causing many many times that and also managing to intrude into Russia proper.
The forces in both directions are therefore considerably greater this time around so whilst you could argue Russia is more motivated with a more popular leader this time, the costs in Blood and Treasure are also exponentially higher. The Mathematics are grim but they always are.
And, to address the 'war mongering' discussion above, the reason I take such a keen interest in this is that I have an academic background in geopolitics, this is the most pivotal armed conflict of my Adult life and I have a son who I dearly want to prevent being sent into the trenches of Eastern Poland in a few years time when an unbowed Putin decides to have another go.
The best way to prevent WWIII (at least in the short-medium term) is stopping Russian expansionism dead in its tracks in Ukraine.
The best way to prevent WWIII (at least in the short-medium term) is stopping Russian expansionism dead in its tracks in Ukraine.
I think the best way to stop this is to stop Russian expansionism dead in its tracks in MOSCOW. This started and ends with Putin. Only China can really do this now.
Only China can really do this now.
Probably true. A NATO - Russia war is hardly in their interests. The Chinese economy is already teetering so Western countries turning their economies to a war footing doesn't help China.
And, to address the ‘war mongering’ discussion above, the reason I take such a keen interest in this is that I have an academic background in geopolitics
There's a big difference between having an interest in geopolitics and cancelling the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with the 'hit them harder, show them who's boss' approach which I have heard many times on this thread (this isn't targeted at you BTW). Maybe not these days but a while back there were people on here arguing for a full-on hot war with Russia on the grounds that their nuclear capability is ineffective and their generals would refuse to launch the missiles. I'm not pretending to know much about this stuff but I think it's pretty obvious that the hardline military escalation approach will only lead us in one direction.
when posting info that turns out to be incorrect mgiht be just as helpful to post a correction - knowing that a stat / statment / event is false is still useful given the amount of disinfo out there!
Fair play to blokeuptheroad for putting their hand up and deleting rather than doubling down.
pretty obvious that the hardline military escalation approach will only lead us in one direction.
And it's also pretty obvious where rolling over for Putin's whims would have left us.
The right point was always somewhere in the middle, where exactly..? History will be the judge but I don't envy those having to make the hard decisions
from China to India, Vietnam and others.
Vietnam. Ahh yes, that Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic[ with a terrible human rights record and endemic corruption. Or the Philippines also with a horrific record of human rights and corruption so bad it is the measure others are judged by.
Mind you, that sounds just like the sort of regimes the US and Britain loves doing business with, as they are small and easy to intimidate and push around.
And workers rights if large swathes of the population get pushed into providing the needs of western countries is going to be pretty much akin to slave labour.
The heck are you talking about? Are you suggesting PRC are any better?
Meanwhile the US is trying to get Intel chip fabs up and running to compete with TSMC in Taiwan. Or ROC. Or China. Depending who you ask.
China has been the world's largest economy for pretty much the entirety of recorded history.
The British took over about 300 years ago, then the Americans more recently, and now it's heading back towards China.
I think regardless of what we do their sheer size makes this almost inevitable.
Anyway, slight digression.
Spurred on by Biden's Chips act, Intel are also dropping some serious money on the next generation of lithographic tech coming out of the Netherlands and setting up to manufacture in the US.
It won't be online for at least a few years yet but if (big IF!) it works as planned it could mark a huge shift in the balance of global power in the Semi-conductor space.
The British took over about 300 years ago, then the Americans more recently, and now it’s heading back towards China.
The Chinese economy is about 2/3 the size of the U.S., but they have more than three times the population so their standard of living is about 1/5 the U.S. They have an aging population so their economic outlook is actually pretty grim - facing the same sort of stagnation as Japan, but without ever having gotten wealthy.
I totally agree, per person they are way down the list.
In terms of wealth per person it's very much the smaller nations that are at the top, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway etc. However, I think the debate over China arose as we were talking about the West's reliance on their manufacturing and how they might be able to support Russia with materiel, and for those it's absolute size which matters, rather than per capita income. The US is pretty much on a par with Ireland by this measure, and China roughly the same as Coasta Rica but they are very different in terms of economic anf military clout.
Are you suggesting PRC are any better?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.
According to the age distribution of China's population in 2023, approximately 68.3 percent of the population were in their working age between 15 and 64 years of age. Retirees aged 65 years and above made up about 15.4 percent of the total population
29.1% of all people in England and Wales (17.3 million) were under 25 years old, 20.2% (12.0 million) were 25 to 39 years old, 26.3% (15.6 million) were 40 to 59 years old, and 24.4% (14.5 million) were aged 60 and over
And for the US
Under 18 years 22.2% (2021)
18–44 years 35.9% (2021)
45–64 years 25.2% (2021)
65 and over 16.8% (2021)
I would say from what I've seen (documentaries etc) people in china work past retirement age. So im not sure where this info about China's increasing aging population comes from, it seems about on par with the US. The UK certainly appears to be following the model of an 'aging population'
Orr am i reading these figures wrongly
However, I think the debate over China arose as we were talking about the West’s reliance on their manufacturing and how they might be able to support Russia with materiel, and for those it’s absolute size which matters, rather than per capita income
I think what matters is the surplus manufacturing capacity after basic needs are met. China is facing a shrinking workforce and growing social welfare burden of retirees. Even if the Chinese economy grows to the size of the U.S. economy, it doesn't mean they will have as much surplus capacity for military purposes because they will have a huge population of elderly people who need to be supported.
I think what matters is the surplus manufacturing capacity after basic needs are met
It does to us. Less so to, for instance, North Korea, where the basic needs come after the millitary. Although even here priorities can shift as cercumstances dictate, the priorities in the early 1940s were very different to what they are now, and to a lesser extent, those at the height of the Cold War were too.
This has wandered wildly off topic. Nothing happening in Eastern Europe at the moment?
I wonder why it wandered off topic. There is a strong correlation with certain posters and this thread descending into opinion led bickering
Spurred on by Biden’s Chips act, Intel are also dropping some serious money on the next generation of lithographic tech coming out of the Netherlands and setting up to manufacture in the US.
It won’t be online for at least a few years yet but if (big IF!) it works as planned it could mark a huge shift in the balance of global power in the Semi-conductor space.
America keeps production of a lot of manufacturing onshore, so that in the event of war they can build their own tanks, planes etc (cant remember what the act is called, but it costs a lot of money to subsidise it all) Britain just doesnt seem to do this, economies of scale suggest that we should probably be aligning with Europe on some sort of similar act,, but.... EU (army) bad etc
There is a strong correlation with certain posters and this thread descending into opinion led bickering
The only person bickering about other posters is you! I have no idea why you want to stifle discussion on this thread but others clearly disagree with you.
Plenty going on, 2 maybe 3 new incursions into the Kursk region, Russia has committed a lot more troops to this area, which was one of the main initial goals. Some Russian successes taking land back.
negotiations has been gone over many times. Neither side is at a point of seeking meaningful negotiations. Also nobody believes Putin will stick to the terms of any agreement. YMMV.