Forum menu
I think we know by now, Russia isn’t going to use its strategic deterrence.
In the current situation that is fair. But if the situation changed substantially, such as your suggested Baltic Blockade, leading to a NATO ship firing on a Russian ship running the blockade, leading to escalatory Russian strikes on a NATO naval base, leading to retaliatory NATO strikes on militarily assets in Russia . . . . then all bets would be off.
Hopefully wiser heads would prevail - hopefully.
leading to escalatory Russian strikes on a NATO naval base
How? They can barely take out Ukranian power stations.
I'm sure they could take out the power stations, would be easy, but hitting the distribution system is pretty much as effective and much more deniable as accidental.
New sanctions imposed on the Russian shadow tanker fleet, I believe China and India have refused to allow some oil tankers to to dock. Also the deployment of JEF to the Baltic sea to help monitor sabotage etc.
the biggest question remains unfortunately is, what will the mandarin Mussolini do?
There is some grim reading about the poor sods from North Korea. Basically being used like the wagner prisioners before them.
One of the guys captured said they thought they were being sent on a training exercise in russia. hopefully somehow the treatment of these troops will get back to NK and cause some discontent so Kim is less sure about sending more
Trump remains the big unknown, if you'd asked me 6 months ago I'd have been certain he'd sell Ukraine down the river and snuggle up to Putin.
Now I'm not so sure and to be honest, Trump is so erratic and thin-skinned that what he decides to do could basically depend on what side of the bed he gets out of that morning.
It's very apparent that Russia's ability to prosecute the war is finally starting to falter in multiple, major ways, they've kept it going for longer than any of us thought possible but the Soviet stockpiles are largely gone and every red warning light on the economy's dashboard is flashing red.
If Trump realises this and decides he wants the glory of being the president that 'defeats' one of the USA's oldest foes then it's very doable, he could end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
But in reality, we just don't know.
Which is ridiculous but here we are.
hopefully somehow the treatment of these troops will get back to NK and cause some discontent so Kim is less sure about sending more
I suspect Kim gives even less of a shit about his countrymen than even Putin. His position is more secure and the media and other sources of information completely controlled even if available.
True, but I reckon Putin coat is on a far more shooglie peg.
But in reality, we just don’t know
The other thing we don't know is how much dirt Putin has on Trump (dodgy financial deals, backhanders, hookers etc.), I'm sure that will have a large bearing on what Trump does as president
I'm not the Teflon Donk has to worry about that stuff...
The other thing we don’t know is how much dirt Putin has on Trump (dodgy financial deals, backhanders, hookers etc.), I’m sure that will have a large bearing on what Trump does as president
Trump will just shout 'Fake News' into the clouds for a bit and it will go away.
hopefully somehow the treatment of these troops will get back to NK and cause some discontent so Kim is less sure about sending more
Reports are that the NK troops have been sent in with no armour or significant kit, just handed an AK and sent to soak up ammunition.
They operate on fear of reprisals back home: coming back alive, or retreating may result in family back home being sent to labour camps or worse so the NK soldiers are actually killing themselves and each other, rather than risking anything that can be construed as retreat.
Also apparently Kim has diddled Vlad on the deal, by sending the agreed number of soliders, but sending the absoloute worst, most useless, poorly trained units. Who knows what he got out of the deal.
Horrendous reading all round. the whole thing doesnt read like a war, just an industrial scale liquidation of mainly Russian troops (2000 a day) and assets, just because Vlad has an ego on him.
New sanctions imposed on the Russian shadow tanker fleet, I believe China and India have refused to allow some oil tankers to to dock. Also the deployment of JEF to the Baltic sea to help monitor sabotage etc.
India and China have been pretty good at sticking to the letter of sanctions. Interpretation is occasionally open to discussion, which is the same in any legal framework, with access to western banking systems and the international appeal of the $US a strong motivator.
There is a Cold War reboot of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap with a Baltic bonus thrown in because of the invasion of Ukraine. GIUK went out of fashion following the fall of the USSR and NATO nation bases on the outlying islands that had surveyed access to the Atlantic from the Norwegian Sea were moth-balled. This is why naval nuclear facilities on the west coast of Scotland are still of strategic importance to supply western submarines.
Global warming is opening up the Arctic shipping routes and Russia imposes tariffs on the Northern Sea Route (one of several routes) to keep channels clear of ice. The Arctic routes can save thousands of miles on some journeys when compared to Suez Canal routes and more when Suez is inaccessible.
Russia has been updating its Arctic military presence for years and is ahead of the west in the region and can control shipping routes in a region that comprises 20% of the Russian land mass. Keeping the west focussed on the Baltic damages NATO resilience and detracts from operations elsewhere.
The JEF nations are all NATO members and the GIUK grouping has been expanded to cover Baltic routes, hence the inclusion of the Netherlands amongst the Baltic countries. Whether we like it or not, there is more to be done and it's going to cost!
The captured NK troops said they thought they were on an exorcise, had no idea they were in Ukraine, in a war zone.
I think they very much knew they were in a warzone by the time they were captured but yes they were apparently told they were going to Russia for training and then sent straight to the front to be butchered en masse as cannon fodder.
Russia and their chums continuing to act with an almost cartoonish level of callousness.
I know we in the West are far from perfect but... wow. One to remember the next time the whataboutery starts up again.
I guess the SK strategists are very keen to see how the NK troops are performing.
Are they good at marching , reciting the red book but useless at shooting stuff?
I guess the SK strategists are very keen to see how the NK troops are performing.
Apologies if it's duplicates info but the Ukrainians have been using SK intelligence to translate for the handful of captured NK combatants they have.
NK soldiers are actually killing themselves and each other, rather than risking anything that can be construed as retreat.
There was an article from a former soldier of NK. In it he explained how soldiers are encouraged kill themselves rather than suffer the humiliation of being captured. The Japanese were similar in WW2, with civilians jumping to their death rather than suffer the humiliation of surrender.
I really don't think its a lot different to Western cultures doing so with the dangle of a bit of metal on a ribbon.
Wars are nonsensical.
I guess the SK strategists are very keen to see how the NK troops are performing.
Are they good at marching , reciting the red book but useless at shooting stuff?
Apparently they are actually very good soldiers and not to be underestimated: https://www.politico.eu/article/north-koreans-skilled-fighters-rather-kill-themselves-then-get-captured-ukrainian-soldiers-say/
I really don’t think its a lot different to Western cultures doing so with the dangle of a bit of metal on a ribbon.
Then you think wrong. Soldiers fight and die for their mates alongside them, not "a bit of metal on a ribbon".
I guess its how many steps back you wish to question why they are there then.
How long before Putin runs out of road politically? I’m sure there are plenty of people who’d love to take over.
I'm not sure there are. He has ruthlessly purged (or killed) anyone who was a genuine political threat, and those around him must be terrified to show an inkling of dissent, or tell him anything he doesn't want to hear. Anyone who had aspirations to take over, is probably doomed the moment they tell anyone else if it gets back to Putin. If he croaks then there will be an unseemly "death of Stalin" style scrabble to take over. Sadly the result is unlikely to be moderate, liberal or democratic.
I guess its how many steps back you wish to question why they are there then.
I'll just ask myself and my many serving and veteran mates then. I can absolutely guarantee, 100% not one of us will answer “for a bit of metal on a ribbon”! Even though incidentally, quite a few have said ornaments of varying levels of blinginess.
Article about Russian advances in eastern Ukraine. Of course it must be wrong, because all STW readers know that Russia is just about to lose.
One sentence is clearly nonsense,
"...But their human resources are unlimited.”
None of Russia's gains are strategic; Ukraine hasn't rolled over with the fall of Avdiivka, Ocheretnye or any other city taken by them.
Luke Harding is a serious journalist, but an interview with a handful of exhausted people doesn't amount to impending defeat
Of course it must be wrong, because all STW readers know that Russia is just about to lose.
Give it a rest. It's possible to make your point without snarky comments every time. I've said it before, I think you could add value to the debate on here, but your abrasive style just puts people backs up.
War is hell and Ukrainians have been living in that reality for a long time now, but even so, current polling of Ukrainian public opinion continues to show strong consistent support for fighting on.
Support for a 'negociated settlement' is creeping up but the devil's in the detail, most of the respondents who say they want a negotiated peace still see any kind of territorial concessions as a solid red line they will not cross, and a Russia that still thinks it can win will not sign any deal that does no give them the territory they currently hold.
Both sides are still a very long way from being in a place where there's a path to a negotiated peace and I suspect Ukraine will fight on even if the US cuts off support. The most likely way this ends is still as a result Political or economic events on the Russian home front.
I think you could add value to the debate on here, but your abrasive style just puts people backs up.
Any comments on the actual article, or just ad hom? As well as interviewing Ukrainian soldiers there is, amongst other things, an analysis of Russian tactics and a map showing their advances in the recent past. Anything to say about that?
Any comments on the actual article, or just ad hom?
This is a bit rich.
Any comments on the actual article, or just ad hom?
Ironically, when you posted the link, you offered no comment on the article, just an ad hom attack on the forum as a whole.
Of course it must be wrong, because all STW readers know that Russia is just about to lose.
Any comments on the actual article.
I'll take a look, I haven't had chance yet. I read most of the links posted on here in good faith. One of my filters to assess the good faith bit, is whether or not the invitation to read it is dripping in sarcasm and thinly veiled contempt for the other contributors to the thread.
Ironically, when you posted the link, you offered no comment on the article, just an ad hom attack on the forum as a whole.
What do you think "ad hominem" means? It means an attack on a person ("your abrasive style"), rather than on a position ("Russia is about to lose").
*sigh*
I am genuinely interested in reading other points of view, as I am very aware our western media picks and chooses what it wants us to see / hear.
You could have said - I found this article really interesting, a different view point on Russia and the fact its not going to be collapsing any time soon.
But, you chose to add a bit of a dig that's kicked stuff off unnecessarily
Anyway I forgot what I really came here to say which was in response to this about members of the armed forces being (solely?) motivated by medals and honours.
I guess its how many steps back you wish to question why they are there then.
Prior to the Ukraine invasion I would have probably naively leaned more to this way of thinking, feeling that the whole military machine is based around some vague outdated concept of defending the queen and country in an abstract way. But it is quite obvious from seeing videos and reading about the defenders of Ukraine that it is literally only about protecting their land, friends, family, and anything else you can think of. And I assume, it is the same for anyone in the military of "Western cultures".
I can't even agree with this
Wars are nonsensical.
Sure they are wasteful and terrible and I hope to never be in one, but the only way to have had no war in this case would have been to allow Putin to do whatever he liked and we saw where that lead early on, in Bucha and Mariupol. Having no war would be nonsensical. And that, I feel, provides some insight into why people are fighting and why people in "Western cultures" are in the military, and I think it has nothing to do with
the dangle of a bit of metal on a ribbon.
What do you think “ad hominem” means? It means an attack on a person (“your abrasive style”), rather than on a position
No ad hominem from me. I didn't attack your position, because you didn't declare one. You posted a link with no comment, then had a dig at the rest of us. No attack on you either, just an observation on your communication style. Am I wrong about it?
Of course it must be wrong, because all STW readers know that Russia is just about to lose.
You were attacking the forum contributors as a whole with your sarcastic, inaccurate snarky comment which appeared to insinuate that all of the forum users were too stupid to share this viewpoint. To me this meets the definition of ad hom. You may disagree and that's fine, but I hope you can agree it was totally unhelpful and contributed nothing to your posting the link to the article. In addition, you offered no comment at all on the article before going on to berate others for not doing so. And now I feel bad for derailing the thread again so I will stop here.
I didn’t attack your position, because you didn’t declare one. Just a link then an insult directed at the rest of us. No attack on you either, just an observation on your communication style. Am I wrong about it?
I think my position was clear from this and previous comments. For future reference, it is that I think that reports of the demise of Russia are exaggerated. I'm not sure who you are referring to by "the rest of us". My dig - if that's what it was - was directed to the folk who are constantly telling us how Russia is about to collapse. I wish that were true but it seems not to be. As regards my communication style, that's for you to say. You may find it abrasive. I find some people's pompous holier-than-thou style irritating. That's my problem.
I am genuinely interested in reading other points of view, as I am very aware our western media picks and chooses what it wants us to see / hear.
To be fair that is not imo a typical attitude on STW threads which have a political slant. Dissenting opinions are generally not well tolerated with accusations of trolling being a typical response. Many seem to prefer the reassurance of unanimity on threads with a political angle.
Going against the general consensus can be a bit like throwing a hand grenade into a thread, I get both DrJ's point and his frustration, even if it was done in his rather abrasive manner.
I generally keep off this thread because I know that providing alternative point of views, especially concerning the behaviour of Western governments, is very likely going to be misinterpreted and frankly I can't be arsed. Invariably it seems to end up that the individual is attacked rather than the point they are making.
For future reference, it is that I think that reports of the demise of Russia are exaggerated.
On that, I agree with you and have said so before. I read the article. It was interesting and grim, as all front line reports are. I'm not sure interviews with selected front line troops reveal much other than the local tactical situation. It is undeniable though, that Russia are making grinding, incremental gains, albeit it at immense cost in lives, materiel and roubles. Much as I wish Ukraine could prevail militarily, I know that they won't. They will have to concede territory in any negotiations, I just hope they can receive a cast iron security guarantee from NATO, the European nations or whoever, to stop Putin having another pop in future
I don't know, I think this thread is fairly balanced until there is some unfortunate (and I think deliberate on occassions) nastiness, which is frankly not needed
I was discussing this very topic with my 2 boys aged 7 and 9 on the way to school this morning. They were asking what a war was, who started it, whose going to win and I was telling them its all very unclear, and that what you see and hear on our media is only half the story.
I also added, they should think about fun, nice stuff like playing with their gerbils and not worry themselves with this sort of thing, as (I very much hope) they will never get close to any of it.
Kids at junior school are discussing this sort of thing in a politer manner than some on here!