What if another random country were to align itself with the Ukraine
Please stop calling it 'The Ukraine'
That - and Kiev vs Kyiv - is the way the Soviet Union refer(red) to it, in a deprecating way.
Good blog on the logistics problems
It also mentions Ukraine flooding the land north of Kyiv, making the mud even worse.
Putting aside what’s happening in Ukraine directly, what do we reckon the impact elsewhere will be?
Syria: RF now effectively cut off from re-supply except by air, which is very expensive, as Turkey has closed the Black Sea.
Kaliningrad: surrounded on two sides by the EU which has closed its airspace, so again cut off from Russia
Caucasus: will various insurgent groups be looking at what’s happening in Ukraine and wondering if the Russian Army is weak?
We’d be far better off taking a neutral position on geo-political issues whilst maintaining the ability to defend ourselves much like Switzerland does.
Switzerland is a far smaller country, and a surprisingly heavily armed one at that. Anyway, they’ve just decided to implement the same sanctions against Russia as the EU, which is better than we’re doing. Insert joke about five hundred years of democracy and peace producing the cuckoo clock.
Meanwhile Sweden and Finland, which are both historically neutral countries (apart from the bits in the Middle Ages when the Swedes, like the Swiss, were rampaging across Europe) are now seriously talking about applying to join NATO.
Looks like we’re going to have a war with Russia
That's literally the opposite of what's written.
For all the positive propaganda coming out of Ukraine I don’t see them making any gains against the Russian rocket launchers which are flattening cities.
Towing broken-down tanks away with a tractor is hardly winning but makes a good Insta post.
For an army that it supposedly badly prepared and supplied the Russians are causing an awful lot of damage and misery.
is the way the Soviet Union refer(red) to it, in a deprecating way.
Actually Ukraine was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 and the Soviet Union garranteed Ukraine had its own permanent seat at the UN.
Indeed this is precisely what Putin has accused the Bolsheviks/Communists of doing - giving Ukraine an independent entity which, according to him, they are not entitled to.
Putin claims that all those who committed to "decommunisation", or some other made up word that he uses, should support his invasion of Ukraine.
Edit: Apologies, I've just checked and Putin is actually quoting right-wing Ukraine politicians when he claims to be committed to the "decommunisation" of Ukraine.
It was the use of “The Ukraine”, rather than just “Ukraine” that they were pointing out. I keep having to edit and delete my posts to remove “The” often myself, easy mistake to make, but one we should be aware of.
Yeah sadly a swift decapitation of the Ukrainian government and installation of pro Putin puppet government would have meant far less damage and loss of life.
But the Ukrainians don't want to surrender
Putin has support at home and almost total control of the domestic media
He has far too much pride to back down, sadly that means attrition and destruction of Ukrainian cities
Yeah sadly a swift decapitation of the Ukrainian government and installation of pro Putin puppet government would have meant far less damage and loss of life.
There’s a good post out there purportedly leaked from an FSB officer that asks the question, if Zelenskyy is captured/dead, who exactly do the Russians negotiate the surrender with, and unless they’re planning to occupy the whole Ukraine, any puppet government will be overthrown 10 minutes after RF withdraw.
Remember this is a country that overthrew its government because the government wanted to join a customs union with Russia rather than the EU.
I'm not talking about when Ukraine was constructed or about whether Ukraine owes Russia because of past history, it's purely about use of language.
I've spoken previously to my Ukrainian colleague at work about it and according to him it is a really big thing; maybe only three letters but of deep significance to Ukrainians, and one I feel should be respected. That's all.
That’s literally the opposite of what’s written.
Sorry, fair point- it was a sly dig at politicians, ie when a politician pre-emptively says something definitely isn't going to happen, then you can be pretty sure that it is
I should have added a 🤷♂️
Putin has support at home and almost total control of the domestic media
He has far too much pride to back down, sadly that means attrition and destruction of Ukrainian cities
This is how I see it too
unless they’re planning to occupy the whole Ukraine, any puppet government will be overthrown 10 minutes after RF withdraw.
They did this succesfully in Chechnya by installing a brutally oppressive dictator
There are some parallels between Ukraine and Chechnya, this video fills in some of the details on the latter
There’s a good post out there purportedly leaked from an FSB officer
Here it is, the jury is out on whether this is genuine or UF psyops. IMO which is obv worth no more or less than anyone else's - it feels genuine. Might be wishful thinking. If true though, it offers a fascinating and worrying glimpse into the dysfunctional higher echelons of the Kremlin and Ru military.
Apologies if this has already been posted - this thread moves so fast it's hard to keep up.
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937?s=20&t=PMYMpiRwChWQ00HIGBI2Bw
Came here to post that!
For an army that it supposedly badly prepared and supplied the Russians are causing an awful lot of damage and misery.
I imagine the artillery etc doing the shelling are in locations the Ukrainians have been unable to hit (regularly and reliably?). And the Russians seems happy to flatten whatever they want and be indiscriminate about it.
That Igor Shushko chap wrote this on his 2000 word FSB tweet:
"Our conditional deadline is June. Conditional because in June there will be no economy left in Russia – there will be nothing left."
Is that possible?
The question about why the UK Government feels it has a role to play, it’s simply down to them having a permanent seat on the UK Security Council, the justification for retaining nuclear weapons otherwise the whole Brexit ‘but soverunty’ argument is kinda useless. The fact that the UK Armed Forces are the smallest they’ve been for 200 years and their ability to sustain any sort of large-scale, expeditionary warfare capability is somewhat moot. Certainly, regardless of the outcome, this is certainly going to change European Geopolitics and the UK’s role. Regardless, the argument for international co-operation grows stronger whist those arguing for the dissolution of NATO and ridiculing the notion of an EU military capability are the ones looking a bit silly. Besides, the UK is pretty broke and simply can’t afford it.
Even if you are 100% sceptical of the Ukranian SM output that train of civilian vehicles is pretty damning.
For those talking about the convoys repairing and resupplying - without money, where will they get tyres from? Where will they get parts when the factories can't get raw materials? Etc etc.
what do we reckon the impact elsewhere will be?
Russian prestige will take a huge hit. Autocrats around the world saw Putin as a strongman, able to stand up to the weak democracies. Seeing the Russian economy flattened like that will hopefully make them think.
Big thing will be what lessons China takes from it. If Russia had been successful. there would have been internal pressure to invade Taiwan. Now, having seen what insurgents armed with anti-tank missiles and MANPADS can do, they will probably be rethinking the military feasibility of sending thousands of troops on a sea crossing to try and storm ashore then fight it out in the mountains against a dug-in enemy. Also, the democracies' willingness to go nuclear on the economic sanctions must have surprised the Chinese leaders. Hopefully, China will decide that a military invasion would be too risky to contemplate.
What makes you think that us on the continent are better prepared?""
As andrewh and crazy-legs said.
Our understanding of the second world was very different to the rest of the continent. I grew up with tales of the doodlebugs and the blitz. There aren't memorials to concentration camps at the bottom of my road, or mass grave sites etc.
The way we celebrate and glorify that conflict over here can only be seen as obscene by any of our European neighbours. 50 Sovietss died for every Briton for example, 5 French, over a dozen Germans. So while me might feel a little bit of sick in our mouths when we see a Liz Truss tweet, over there they vomit on the carpet when they see her.
British casualties made up less than one percent of the total number from WW2, yet there's a lot in Britain who think we won it singlehandedly, with a bit of help from the Yanks. This government has been zealous in perpetuating that myth. We just don't realise the contempt with which we are held across Europe for our behaviour .
@inkster - The number of people in the UK who believe we won WW2 alone is staggering.
British casualties made up less than one percent of the total number from WW2, et there’s a lot in Britain who think we won it singlehandedly, with a bit of help from the Yanks. This government has been zealous in perpetuating that myth. We just don’t realise the contempt with which we are held across Europe for our behaviour .
Hmmm. I laid a wreath for the KSLI dead (Op Market Garden) in Mook in 2009. Not a lot of contempt shown by the Dutch that day, some of whom lived through & remember that event quite clearly.
So while me might feel a little bit of sick in our mouths when we see a Liz Truss tweet, over there they vomit on the carpet when they see her.
Promoted above her pay grade.
Are you saying those Dutch people who were greatful for the sacrifices made by British troops on their behalf excuse the behaviour of our jingoistic prime minister and press?
As far as parallels between RF/Ukraine and China/Taiwan I believe the US has a legal obligation to protect Taiwan, so it's a different proposition.
Having said that I think China will be very interested spectators to any US actions regarding Ukraine.
The way we celebrate and glorify that conflict over here can only be seen as obscene by any of our European neighbours. 50 Sovietss died for every Briton for example, 5 French, over a dozen Germans. So while me might feel a little bit of sick in our mouths when we see a Liz Truss tweet, over there they vomit on the carpet when they see her.
So glory in war is based on how many people died?
Perhaps we just did a better job or weren’t prepared to use our people as cannon fodder, or perhaps because we are an island nation and a land war never happened here has a huge bearing on casulaties?
And name me a country which hasn’t glorified a war that they ‘won’. As they say history is written by the victors.
The number of people in the UK who believe we won WW2 alone is staggering.
Sounds like you are one of the lucky ones who has enough nous to be able peak behind the curtain and see how countries work re propaganda and trying to promote feelings of patriotism- even democratic ones. I suppose what separates the less corrupt, more politically transparent nations such as ours (UK) is that it allows for dissenting voices to add some counterbalance and therefore, to some extent at least, the jingoistic rhetoric. What you do with that information is, of course, up to you.
Are you saying those Dutch people who were greatful for the sacrifices made by British troops on their behalf excuse the behaviour of our jingoistic prime minister and press?
It's quite obvious what I'm saying.
I'm saying not all of Europe holds the UK in contempt. I care not for what they think of Liz Truss et al in this instance - just that I was overwhelmed by the gratitude shown to me that day for the sacrifices made by my grandfather & his colleagues. I cannot speak for the Dutch on their views of our current Gov - perhaps you should ask them?
I believe the US has a legal obligation to protect Taiwan, so it’s a different proposition.
No, there's no treaty and Taiwan isn't officially recognized as a country. The US position is to be ambiguous about it. If they openly sign a defense treaty with Taiwan, China will take that as a hostile act and the leaders will be compelled to invade. If they openly declare that they won't support Taiwan, China will invade. The Chinese leaders use Taiwan to rally nationalistic support but that used to just be empty talk. Now that China is much more powerful economically and militarily, it's easy for nationalist factions to demand that they go ahead and invade. Hopefully the Russian debacle in Ukraine will convince them that it will not be worth the enormous cost, even if they succeed.
It is astonishing how in terms of foreign policy and conflict all the Westminster parties always line up and sadly most people go in for defending 'our' ruling class against that of another country and loads of plebeian lives are lost on the way. Jingoism par excellence. Also how comes 'oligarch' is only ever applied to Russians, good gob it's not as though we haven't got enough of our own.
"or perhaps because we are an island nation and a land war never happened here has a huge bearing on casulaties?"
That's the one, it has a bearing on how we see that war and this war. We were shielded from the worst arttrocities last time around which perhaps makes us less psycologicaly prepared for future conflicts and more eager to be gung-ho or jingoistic as a result.
I wasn't attributing glory to the number of casualties, sorry if you read it that way.
"Also how comes ‘oligarch’ is only ever applied to Russians, good gob it’s not as though we haven’t got enough of our own"
Good point.
In many cases they should be called kleptocrats rather than oligarchs
No, there’s no treaty and Taiwan isn’t officially recognized as a country. The US position is to be ambiguous about it. If they openly sign a defense treaty with Taiwan, China will take that as a hostile act and the leaders will be compelled to invade. If they openly declare that they won’t support Taiwan, China will invade. The Chinese leaders use Taiwan to rally nationalistic support but that used to just be empty talk. Now that China is much more powerful economically and militarily, it’s easy for nationalist factions to demand that they go ahead and invade. Hopefully the Russian debacle in Ukraine will convince them that it will not be worth the enormous cost, even if they succeed.
Nicely summarised!
defending ‘our’ ruling class against that of another country
As a rule, I absolutely do not to that, and neither to many politicians, across all parties. In terms of Putin pushing Russian forces into Ukraine to take it by force… I, and unsurprisingly most politicians, absolutely are not siding with Putin or the actions Russia are currently taking. Stick to the subject of this thread, and tell us why we and/or our politicians should side with Putin in this particular war? Rather than condemn the offensive military actions being taken against a sovereign state? It is not the “ruling class” of Ukraine under bombardment, it is all the people of Ukraine. Stop the war. Putin must stop this war.
In many cases they should be called kleptocrats rather than oligarchs
I would say the difference is a kleptocrat is a government minister who uses their position to steal wealth, whereas an oligarch is a businessman (term used loosely) who uses close political ties to further line their pockets- essentally the same, but one is within government and the other without
Also how comes ‘oligarch’ is only ever applied to Russians, good job it’s not as though we haven’t got enough of our own.
This is a good point, we tend to call them 'fatcats' but that doesn't illustrate the extent to which they lobby (ie influenece) government to further their own ends. Maybe labelling them oligarchs instead would be an effective way of starting to get that message over a bit more!
There are oligarchs in/from other countries. We rarely use that term in terms of the UK because of the divergence of ownership and control of large companies, especially those that also have political and/or social influences. The USA (arguably worldwide) tech industry is often said to have oligarchs though, is is not a term reserved only for Russian oligarchs at all. Our newspapers have been described as owned by oligarchs in the past… and I for one would like that description to become common again, ‘till we sort out media ownership/control in the UK. Pretty obvious what the barrier to describing the media owners in those terms might be…
an oligarch is a businessman (term used loosely) who uses close political ties to further line their pockets
The thing with the Russian oligarchs is they don't really own their companies. They're just a front for Putin who can throw them in jail and seize all their assets if they displease him. They're really just managers, not true owners.
Air Marshall Philip Osbourn talking here about no fly zones (which he’s been involved with before) and the general strategic/military/political situation.
International help, from the ground up not just the top down, comes in all kinds of forms. This one is simple to understand, and pretty uncontroversial to applaud…
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1500108250276057090?s=21
The russian billionaires being sanctioned are both kleptocrats and oligarchs; they have become oligarchs through kleptocracy.
