Ukraine

inflation wise not even in the same ballpark chewkw

Absolutely +1

Detail-wise too:

RPI price for 250g butter in October 2023 was £2.19 and October 2024 it was £2.17 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/kw9b/mm23

I can’t be bothered to sort through the tables for different spuds, but loose new potatoes per kg £1.43 to £1.51 in the same period

Russia had an egg crisis during winter 23-24, some cracks in the economy? A dozen eggs here, no change at £3.26

Putin’s Plan to Fix Russia’s Egg Crisis Backfires https://www.newsweek.com/russia-egg-crisis-nato-turkey-export-backfires-h5n1-bird-flu-1860155

Making sure we weren’t hiding stuff,

I remember hiding stuff (admittedly, not a lot) when the Russian inspectors came round……………………….

I think it’s well overdue we start hitting the Russians with x10 more… ++++ them.

This is peurile infantile nonsense. It’s a bloody good job the western military respone to Ukraine and Putin isn’t in the hands of macho idiots on here as millions would already be dead by now and the rest of us would be back in the stone age. ‘Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough’ might be a valid strategy in a pub argument, but not for nuclear armed geopolitical crises.

macho idiots on here

The post you quoted isn’t very measured I’ll grant you. Neither is your default setting of slinging insults. You sometimes have good points to make but they get lost because the moment you start with the ad hominems people instantly stop listening. You could post without doing that. Just a thought.

It’s a bloody good job the western military respone to Ukraine and Putin isn’t in the hands of macho idiots on here

arguably standing up to Putin is exactly what we should have done years ago ,  poisoning dissidents & uk citizens , annexing huge chunks of former USSR countries, undermining elections, we failed utterly, hoovering up oil & gas on the cheap.

appeasement of Putin has failed utterly

This is peurile infantile nonsense.

You missed out the sentence directly before:

Europe has been very carefull so far, and that is a massive mistake…

Who knew that not launching the first ever full-scale war with a nuclear armed country was a “massive mistake”?

Neither is your default setting of slinging insults.

I’ll stop when the macho nonsense stops. For the most part this thread is fairly serious and sensible, as it should be for a subject of such gravity. But then every now again we see comments like..

“as for Putlers response, I’m quaking in my boots”

appeasement of Putin has failed utterly

There’s that word again. It doesn’t apply in this case as it did in the 1930s. The two situations are not at all comparable for the simple fact that Putin has nuclear weapons and is possibly prepared to use them. If Hitler had nukes you can bet the western powers would not have declared war on him and the world would now be very different. Call it what you like, but the cold reality is that avoiding nuclear armageddon makes everything else pale into insignificance.

What you call appeasement I call diplomacy. The alternative to diplomacy is war. Are you seriously suggesting we should go to full scale direct war with Russia? Do you have a death wish? Do you think destroying modern civilization and killing billions is worth it to maintain a point of principle? Because make no mistake, that’s exactly what we’re talking about here.

^^Daz, I agree with most of that (except your first sentence), especially as you put it so nicely. I knew you could!  😉

 but not for nuclear armed geopolitical crises.

Russia are currently only able to carry on with their adventurism in Ukraine  becasue they’re being directly propped up and aided by countries like Iran, China and North Korea, if anyone is guilty of escalation then the blame can be firmly laid at the feet of those countries.

Oh joy here we go again, our regular antagonist has returned

Whilst I also don’t agree with suggesting we go attack russia and I also think its really quite a bad idea, I am able to restrain myself from calling people idiots.  I wish you would stop being so insulting to anyone that does not share your view.

if anyone is guilty of escalation then the blame can be firmly laid at the feet of those countries.

I didn’t mention blame or talk about who did what first or whatever. All I’m saying is that applying schoolyard male bravado to a situation as complex, delicate and dangerous as this will result in a catastrophe that we will all suffer from. It needs cool heads and pragmatic solutions, not ultimatums and threats, and thankfully that seems to be the approach that the western powers are taking rather than rising to Putin’s egotistic petulance.

If Hitler had nukes you can bet the western powers would not have declared war on him and the world would now be very different.

That is a very interesting point. I genuinely do wonder what had happened if he did. At the end of the day, we never wanted to go to war but we drew one too many lines in the sand with the stance about invading Poland as it was – so would he have continued to land-grab? Would England / France have still had to eventually declare war no matter what?

I was aware of the ban on importing Russian oil into the EU but have only just picked up on the fact India are buying massive quantities of Russian oil, refining it into diesel, and selling it to the EU. The thinking is that if India stopped importing Russian oil and bought it on the open market it would cause a spike in oil prices and a knock on increase in inflation.

Appeasement

definition: the action of satisfying the demands an aggressive person, country, or organisation: – think that describes Russia quite nicely

Appeasement is an appropriate word, no need to invoke the 1930,s or Natzi Germany.

 to a situation as complex, delicate and dangerous as this will result in a catastrophe that we will all suffer from.

As far as I can see, the ‘situation’ isn’t all that complex or delicate. Putin invaded a country and is essentially daring the West to stop by playing the nuclear card at every opportunity. The story from Russia as been consistent: Supply Ukraine with weapons we’ll use  Nukes, supply Ukraine with tanks; Nukes, Supply Ukraine with F16s: Nukes…

It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now. As it is, the US strategy of trying to contain it by suppling Ukraine with ‘just’ enough to keep going, while doing nothing to deter the likes of China Iran and N Korea from escalating the conflict has prolonged it un-necessarily.

I’m not sure Putin can back down now, I think its gone too far.  At the outset there was lots of talk about giving Russia an ‘off ramp’ to save face that they didn’t easily overthrow ukraine.  I haven’t seen much about that being pushed via the press – it now seems to be the press is setting the scene for a ‘frozen conflict’.

And in all likelihood a frozen conflict is just one that will allow russia to rearm and go again in a few years time. aka crimea

I’m not sure what diplomatic routes are viable when Putin is stating he will only accept peace if ukraine completely capitulate.

stood their ground as one

Decision making is relatively straightforward and fast as a team of one.
NATO are a bigger team with some probably conflicting opinions and ideas to slow things down or muddy the waters. Then there’s Orban and Fico undermining things…. must be like herding cats.

Is the general idea to give way and sit it out until putin dies?

Orban’s latest round of shithousery is to invite Netanyahu to visit in defiance of ICC.

It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now

What does that actually look like?

It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now.

And if he doesn’t? You may be right but even if the chance of him not backing down is low, lets say 10% for argument’s sake, are you willing to gamble the lives of billions of people and the very existence of western civilisation on a 10:1 bet? Even if it’s a 100:1 or 1000:1 bet it’s not one anyone could take given the consequences. Lets put it another way, are you willing to die and risk all your friends and family dying and suffering horribly to ‘stand up to Putin’?

As I’ve said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take.

A truly hypersonic missile needs to manoeuvre for accuracy at hypersonic speeds

The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.

standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take.

If there’s no point in standing up to him, the only other option seems to be letting him do whatever he wants? Whatever his territorial/imperial ambitions?  Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?

Maybe it’s time the ‘west’ (whatever that really is) had a JFK moment and called his bluff. It will at some time come to that unless he backs down.

Can we just be clear: standing up to Putin doesn’t automatically mean nuclear armageddon. It’s not a logical process to say ‘defy putin – get nuclear war’. He won’t use nukes against the west or Nato because of the mutual deterrent effect – he simply can’t in reality. If he tried, everything he holds dear and is fighting for would end. He’s also rather boxed in with their use in Ukraine now, and that’s where his threats are aimed at, and his bluff has been repeatedly called. China would not accept Russia using them in Ukraine, and Nato has made it clear what they would do if such an event took place (serious non-nuclear response).  The fact is, we are and have been standing up to Putin, slowly and steadily, and continuing to do so will provide a better end to the conflict for the west/Nato and Ukraine.

As I’ve said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take

You seem to be ignoring the consequences of not standing up to him, it’s a big part of the reason why we’re in this current mess. If he’s allowed to get away with invading other countries that are posing no military threat to Russia why would he stop after Ukraine, why would he stop at re-uniting the former Soviet Union? If all he needs to do is a bit of nuclear sabre-rattling and NATO/the West turns a blind eye then it just emboldens him.

No one in their right mind wants a nuclear war but it’s Putin that’s dragging the world closer to one, not the West for refusing to capitulate to his demands.

Surely the key is to remove the support is receiving from other countries. Relying on their own resources Russia would struggle to maintain the war in Ukraine and would reach a point where an acceptable negotiated settlement is possible.

What frightens me is that any move to munitions using fissile materials will tip the balance irrespective of their yield and subsequent destruction of humans and infrastructures.

A 0.1 kiloton tactical nuclear bomb deployed to obliterate a column of Ukrainian troops and tanks would trigger WW3 even if was far less powerful than the hundreds of munitions used prior.

Or is there another definition / value associated with starting a nuclear war?

Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange. It would instantly put most of the world against Russia, and as explained above, Putin is aware of the military response from Nato (i.e. non nuclear, but serious response, like sinking what remains of the black sea fleet, or some other show of serious capability). This scenario has been planned for, and I would think a non-nuclear response would make him look even more of a pariah to the world, and completely isolate him (including with China), whilst his forces are seriously hit in what would look like a measured response.

It’s not a logical process to say ‘defy putin – get nuclear war’

No but we know he is nowhwere near as rational as NATO leaders are. Assuming he won’t launch nukes because he has too much to lose or because we wouldn’t do that isn’t a safe assumption. He’s already on record as saying a world without (presumably a Putin-lead) Russia is not a world worth having. All the hawks on here proposing stronger action seem to assume he’s a rational actor who will do what’s in his best interests. I don’t see any evidence of that and reckon he’s far more dangerous and volatile than many of us assume.

Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?

I guess if he attacked a NATO country. The problem with this entire f****-up situation is that Ukraine isn’t one.

Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange.

Jeez we’re through the looking glass now. If Putin launches any type of nuke against Ukraine it’s game over. The west will respond, he’ll launch another, and it won’t end before the missiles are flying. Naive and wishful thinking like this is what will be the end of us.

I don’t think he is irrational or unhinged, he is cold and utterly ruthless. It’s not an assumption about nukes, it is explicitly how the deterrent works. He can’t just use a first strike against the west because that would end Russia – it’s a cold logic he understands. I’d argue that his current behaviour and sabre rattling is proof of his understanding of the logic; he is doing what he can in the envelope of opportunity he currently has, but the ones you fear are closed to him. His current conduct can also be seen as an expression of the limited options at his disposal. He’s not Putin the all powerful to be feared when he has bought 10,000 north korean soldiers to die in defence of the bit of Russia they can’t remove Ukranian forces from.

Russia’s existence isn’t being threatened, nor will it be by trying to stop him in Ukraine.

@dazh – i think the naivety is entirely your own i’m afraid. If your critical reasoning is broken and you’re not open to other reasoned dialogue, then expect to be challenged on your beliefs on this subject, and your reasoning (or lack) behind them.

 have only just picked up on the fact India are buying massive quantities of Russian oil, refining it into diesel, and selling it to the EU.

They are not buying as much Russian oil as Saudi Arabia currently is.

And just as a reminder what a friend and ally to the West the brutal Saudi dictatorship is:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gop-senator-says-israel-saudi-normalization-deal-possible-before-years-end/

<i>.</i>

Orban’s latest round of shithousery is to invite Netanyahu to visit in defiance of ICC.

Considering what Israel is doing I feel like this should be a surprise for Orban. But it isnt.

What’s his rationale? Is he genuinely wanting Hungary to be a safe destination country for Netanyahu?

If your critical reasoning is broken

You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn’t be as bad as we all fear. I don’t think it’s my critical reasoning that’s broken. 😉

What’s his rationale?

Well Victor Orban and Benjamin Netanyahu have quite a lot in common. Both are authoritarian far-right racists who hate Muslims and who have been very chummy with Putin for a while.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Viktor_Orban

@dazh Maybe it’s just your comprehension then: I was explaining with lots of valid reasoning and examples of how nuclear doctrine works, the reasons why it wasn’t necessarily going to lead to the catastrophe you assume. It’s the basis of your assumption that I’ve tried to reasonably contest. Make of it what you have…

You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn’t be as bad as we all fear. I don’t think it’s my critical reasoning that’s broken. ?

Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?

The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.

Yeah, but… not in the context of weapons (e.g. missiles). By that strict definition of speed, a German V2 (1944-1952) was technically hypersonic, however…

What differentiates today’s emerging class of hypersonic capabilities is the use of aerodynamic lift to allow reentry vehicles to maneuver under guided flight within the atmosphere. While ballistic missiles follow a parabolic trajectory to their target, hypersonic missiles can reenter the atmosphere much quicker. After being launched from rocket boosters, these “boost-glide” vehicles reenter the atmosphere and are guided to their target with the ability to undertake evasive maneuvers to overcome defenses. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-hypersonic-weapons/

By that definition, neither Kinzhal* nor R26 Rubezh/Oreshnik are considered weapons-grade hypersonic. They are quick though 🙂

*and I learnt that just now too

Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?

I took Daz meaning that it would create an escalation in which a nuclear exchange was possible.

The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

If that did occur I believe that NATO countries in Western Europe are likely to be targeted, which would be a step closer to a nuclear exchange.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus

I suppose the question for Dazh is, which of Putins red lines should the west/ not have crossed in the past? Every time he comes on here saying don’t risk it, nuclear Armageddon etc

So which red lines then? Was it supplying Javelins? Or Leopards or F16s or attacking Crimea? Or any of the other 20 or so times Russia has threaten nuclear war if you do this or that.

perhaps the initial German aid response of  5000 helmets was the correct one, maybe throw in some socks too, that’s not too risky 😉

And yeah, I’ll stand by my comment – I’m not quaking in my boots – firing a missile without a warhead isn’t much off a threat, after all The Russian nuclear arsenal is already priced in to NATO policy. Firing a dud missile changes nothing.