Russia invades Ukraine

[GusB]

One thing that the EU could do to reduce its need for Russian gas is to require Norway to send all its gas exports to EU/EEA states only, as a condition of it remaining a member of the European Economic Area.

Norway is on the hate list now? Good grief, where do you stop?!

 

[daodao]

Norway is on the hate list now? Good grief, where do you stop?!

The comment is not targetted at Norway - it was merely a practical suggestion as to how the EU/EEA could reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies. It would be countries outside the EU/EEA that currently import gas from Norway who would need to find other suppliers.

 

[REVUpminster]

The comment is not targetted at Norway - it was merely a practical suggestion as to how the EU/EEA could reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies. It would be countries outside the EU/EEA that currently import gas from Norway who would need to find other suppliers.

So another attack on Britain from remainers or Putin's allies.

 

[coppercapped]

The "days to weeks" estimates were based on an assumption that Russia's army was in fact as strong as it appeared to be on paper. If that was the case, then Ukraine would have been able to hold out for a few weeks at most, before eventually either capitulating completely or suing for peace.

It has turned out that Russia's military has a *lot* of rot, meaning that their actual strength has been just about equal to Ukraine. When two more-or-less equal armies go to war it's a recipe for a stalemate - there will be tactical victories on either side, but the strategic picture will largely remain unchanged for months at a time. And that's exactly what we've been played out in Ukraine so far, despite 100+ days of war, Russia has basically made no real significant gains. So, until or unless something significant changes on either side we are going to see a long war of attrition. Which is likely to drag on for a number of years but is unlikely to last for decades.

Quite so.

From reading a range of different sources it seems to me that there are two different Russias emerging. The Russian state is not doing too badly, the drop in volumes of oil exports has been more than made up by the price increases (even though Russia is selling oil to, for example, India at a discount) which means that the government can pay for its troops and the ongoing costs.

However the effects of sanctions will increasingly affect the civilian and general industrial capacity. The Russian state may have appropriated all the Boeings and the Airbuses in Russia, but as the spares (brake pads, turbine blades, generators, windscreens, fuel pumps, hydraulic bits and bobs, etc.) run out the planes will be grounded or Aeroflot's accident record will revert to that seen in Soviet times. This effect will be seen elsewhere, apparently even Russian sources have stated that several million people have slipped into the Russian definition of poverty since February.

The Ministry of Defence's update on 22nd June (Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1539473242678779905) suggests that some 55% of the original forces of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) were killed in action or wounded, since the start of the year. This highlights the extraordinary attrition Russian and pro-Russian forces are suffering in the Donbas. As both the breakaway areas have introduced conscription for all men up to the age of 65 without exceptions for health or suitability it is likely that the actual casualty rate will be higher.

This is possibly why the Russian casualties don't seem to be quite so high as one would expect - Putin is progressing his 'special military operation' using proxy forces.

So this is all a long winded way of explaining that Putin can continue the war for as long as he wants — the Russian military is not yet on a war footing as Putin gambled he could take Ukraine as easily as he took the Crimea. This supposes that no events occur (palace putsch, illness, revolution in the streets) which change the game but I reckon the chances of any of these things happening to be small.

Putin may continue to make small territorial gains at great cost in men and materiel but he has already lost the strategic war. One of his objectives was to stop other countries joining NATO, but Finland and Sweden will soon be joining. The jump in German's military spending will mean that it will, in a year or so, have more than a dozen flight-worthy Typhoons and a couple of dozen driveable Leopards and be on its way to maintaining the sort of military force which matches its economic position.

Ukraine is already on a war footing - its tax base has collapsed and the Government's outgoings have skyrocketed. It is being financially supported by its allies in the West. It can continue to fight for as long as it has its allies' backing. In this sense its closest allies are the Baltic states and Poland and these will do all they can to stop any of the others from backsliding. The UK is slightly different - it already has some significant grievances with Putin - Alexander Litvinenko was a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and the KGB who fled to the UK where he was poisoned in 2006. The Skripals were also poisoned in Salisbury in 2018 in an action which also killed a UK citizen. These sorts of activities are unacceptable in someone else's country.

Countries can take extreme losses, yet continue fighting and survive and in some cases win their war. This 'special military operation' could go on for a lot longer yet.

 

[Annetts key]

Countries can take extreme losses, yet continue fighting and survive and in some cases win their war. This 'special military operation' could go on for a lot longer yet.

Maybe, but as the various countries that continue to support Ukraine with military hardware and weapons systems increasingly provide the better quality and more capable “NATO specification” or similar, along with training of the Ukraine staff, this will eventually help to turn the tide of the war against Russia.

It’s been said before, but I’ll refresh your memories, Russia has a limited capacity in the production of replacement military hardware compared to the capability of “the West”. So if enough Ukraine military personnel can be trained, in theory, the Ukrainian military can be resupplied continuously with better quality and more capable weapons systems.

The ‘but’ here of course, is that “the West” continues it’s support, and the companies in “the West” ramp up their production lines. Most only run production lines when they have firm orders. Our governments need to place new orders so that equipment can be delivered to Ukraine and be used to replace stock that was already (or going to be) given to Ukraine.

New orders would also obviously help the economics of the towns and cities where these manufacturers have factories.

Oh, one other thing. It’s also possible that some weapons systems (and I’m thinking of fully guided surface to surface missile systems here) could be specially adapted or made for Ukraine. The idea being that the guidance systems would allow unrestricted use within Ukraine, but not allow flight inside Russia territory. That would give the Ukrainians a precision weapons technology that would make life difficult far behind the Russian front line… (but not actually in Russia).

 

[TheEdge]

The ‘but’ here of course, is that “the West” continues it’s support, and the companies in “the West” ramp up their production lines. Most only run production lines when they have firm orders. Our governments need to place new orders so that equipment can be delivered to Ukraine and be used to replace stock that was already (or going to be) given to Ukraine.

Which is exactly what Eastern Europe is doing. Poland is on a spending spree, I think they now operate or have on order almost every in production modern MBT family. Anyone with a T-72 in their arsenal is asking for Leopards or Abrams if they move their T-72s to Ukraine Every air force that has something that looks like a MiG 29 has looked west for a F-16 or Grippen and in turn those guys are looking across the Atlantic for their F-35s.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I see Russia has committed its latest outrage, missile strike on a civilian shopping centre in broad daylight, potentially killing 1000 innocent people.

I feel physically sick with rage reading about this. Prosecution, or death (he‘ll get neither of course) is too good for Putin. If this was a deliberate act then he deserves two in the kneecaps, being castrated with a rusty spoon and fed to his ******* horse. The man is a monster and the government and society that created / protects him deserves to be destroyed.

 

[adc82140]

Much as Putin is a spiteful nasty piece of work, we must be aware that propaganda comes from both sides. A shopping centre was hit today, and an apartment building yesterday. Russia was responsible for these acts, they are war crimes, there is no disputing that. But both of these incidents are likely down either the incompetence of the Russian military when it comes to targeting, or the fact that their guided missile stocks have become depleted. Both places have military or infrastructure targets nearby. Inexcusable all the same, but not quite as reported.

 

[duncanp]

The man is a monster and the government and society that created / protects him deserves to be destroyed.

Not to mention those Western nations who condemn Putin with one breath, but finance his war by continuing to use Russian gas.

As well as those snivelling little cowards and appeasers, such as the Rt Rev. Nick Baines (Bishop of Leeds) who think that Ukraine should give up the Donbas region in order to obtain a ceasefire with Russia.

Doesn't he realise (or more likely he realises but doesn't care) that if you appease people like Putin, they will only come back for more, as happened with Hitler in the run up to World War 2?

 

[dakta]

I think I said earlier in the thread but not in the same words that I have a low opinion of appeasers - Rt Rev. Nick Baines apparently becoming a good example of one.

I actually can't underestimate how low that opinion I have is, under the veil of tolerance and saving every life possible they create reward and value for evil deeds. How about no.

No good person wants a fight, no good person wants to go through a confrontational life, no good person wants to do harm to others - but if you avert every confrontation on the basis of avoiding collateral the world will be very dark

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Much as Putin is a spiteful nasty piece of work, we must be aware that propaganda comes from both sides. A shopping centre was hit today, and an apartment building yesterday. Russia was responsible for these acts, they are war crimes, there is no disputing that. But both of these incidents are likely down either the incompetence of the Russian military when it comes to targeting, or the fact that their guided missile stocks have become depleted. Both places have military or infrastructure targets nearby. Inexcusable all the same, but not quite as reported.

I get what you’re saying, but that would be like trying to justify 9/11 if the planes had actually been intended for a nearby military target rather than the towers.

 

[duncanp]

No good person wants a fight, no good person wants to go through a confrontational life, no good person wants to do harm to others - but if you avert every confrontation on the basis of avoiding collateral the world will be very dark

Which can be summed up by the quotation "..all that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing..."

If people had stood up to Hitler in the 1930s instead of appeasing him, I think that more lives would have been saved, and the Second World War, if it had happened at aill, would have been shorter and less bloody.

If you appease Putin now, he will then go on to threaten Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as carve out some territory from Poland and Lithuania to link Belarus (a Russian puppet state) with Kaliningrad.

And then none of the former Iron Curtain states will be safe.

 

[Pete_uk]

How I wish I could rain down thermobams on the Russian units in Ukraine.
Every single one.

We can only hope the western weapons somehow mark a big turning point. It's just a case of whether they have enough.

 

[dakta]

Which can be summed up by the quotation "..all that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing..."

If people had stood up to Hitler in the 1930s instead of appeasing him, I think that more lives would have been saved, and the Second World War, if it had happened at aill, would have been shorter and less bloody.

If you appease Putin now, he will then go on to threaten Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as carve out some territory from Poland and Lithuania to link Belarus (a Russian puppet state) with Kaliningrad.

And then none of the former Iron Curtain states will be safe.

It's a quote I absolutely agree with

Petty example but same principle, kid at schools grabs kit kat out of your lunchbox and eats half of it, teacher says 'well its not worth doing a detention, and it's half eaten now so no point giving you it back, so we'll settle with saying dont do it again - no point going further as it is only a biscuit'

if you're not that fussed about being told not to do stuff again it becomes a rewarding venture and definitely a vote for the 'if you want it, take it' principle, after all you can't really argue with results compounded with an absence of meaningful consequence. You can't actually knock a bully for bullying if it gets the job done from their side because we're not doing ours. Getting a bit of what you want without personal impact, cost or consequence is pretty much a victory. That's why appeasers annoy me nearly as much as the people directly responsible.

 

[Trackman]

Much as Putin is a spiteful nasty piece of work, we must be aware that propaganda comes from both sides. A shopping centre was hit today, and an apartment building yesterday. Russia was responsible for these acts, they are war crimes, there is no disputing that. But both of these incidents are likely down either the incompetence of the Russian military when it comes to targeting, or the fact that their guided missile stocks have become depleted. Both places have military or infrastructure targets nearby. Inexcusable all the same, but not quite as reported.

Chances are it was Putin's two fingered salute to the G7 summit.

 

[brad465]

Chances are it was Putin's two fingered salute to the G7 summit.

It might be a counterproductive move on Putin's part, the war had been fading away in the news recently, which may have created a more lax attitude towards helping Ukraine, but Putin's latest war crimes have just thrown the whole war back into full exposure, including on many front pages, and will lead to fresh calls for the right sort of action, even if the G7 summit was going to achieve some of that anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

Chances are it was Putin's two fingered salute to the G7 summit.

He does have form for this sort of thing after all……

 

[nw1]

I see Russia has committed its latest outrage, missile strike on a civilian shopping centre in broad daylight, potentially killing 1000 innocent people.

I feel physically sick with rage reading about this. Prosecution, or death (he‘ll get neither of course) is too good for Putin. If this was a deliberate act then he deserves two in the kneecaps, being castrated with a rusty spoon and fed to his ******* horse. The man is a monster and the government and society that created / protects him deserves to be destroyed.

Horse? Sadly not carnivorous, despite the presence of the dog-eating horse in "There was an old lady who swallowed a fly".

However, correct me if I am wrong but I do believe there are large carnivorous animals native to Russia. How about a Siberian tiger or polar bear finishing off Putin?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I said earlier in the thread but not in the same words that I have a low opinion of appeasers - Rt Rev. Nick Baines apparently becoming a good example of one.

I actually can't underestimate how low that opinion I have is, under the veil of tolerance and saving every life possible they create reward and value for evil deeds. How about no.

No good person wants a fight, no good person wants to go through a confrontational life, no good person wants to do harm to others - but if you avert every confrontation on the basis of avoiding collateral the world will be very dark

Trouble is that in nuclear war, everybody dies. There is nothing worse. It would be better to live under Putin than that.

If nuclear weapons did not exist I would support us getting involved directly. As they do I cannot.

 

[nw1]

I get what you’re saying, but that would be like trying to justify 9/11 if the planes had actually been intended for a nearby military target rather than the towers.

That's the thing. Russia have absolutely no moral right whatsoever to do anything in Ukraine, even targeting the military - so such acts should be unreservedly condemned.

That said I echo others' concerns about not doing anything in retaliation which might provoke nuclear war.

 

[dakta]

Trouble is that in nuclear war, everybody dies. There is nothing worse. It would be better to live under Putin than that.

If nuclear weapons did not exist I would support us getting involved directly. As they do I cannot.

I understand the logic, but I don't personally subscribe to the fact nuclear war is likely, I expect it to get a lot of rhetoeric purely on the basis Putin has little else that would dissuade us from getting involved if we were minded to so the threats have to look real, particularly given the non-nuclear forces haven't really wowed on the field. I also expect, though all signals will be to the contrary that Russia will at some level recognise the limited value in guaranteeing its own destruction. On that basis conceding parts of Ukraine would actually be a textbook bully win at the hands of the appeasers.

And one might be happy with that, but you've now solved a problem and made a more serious one because the technique is now proven and the responses are known

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand the logic, but I don't personally subscribe to the fact nuclear war is likely

I think if we directly attacked Russian troops there would be a very high chance of it escalating to that.

 

[dakta]

Possibly, I don't think so personally, but you can't rule it out. it doesn't change my opinion much

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly, I don't think so personally, but you can't rule it out. it doesn't change my opinion much

So you would consider the end of civilisation by way of global thermonuclear war preferable to Putin getting some of Ukraine (or even the UK)?

I wouldn't. I'd rather live under a despot than die pointlessly*. Bad leaders can always be removed later, it's happened many times over history.

* Very different from dying in a war where you were as an individual actively fighting against a despot.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So you would consider the end of civilisation by way of global thermonuclear war preferable to Putin getting some of Ukraine (or even the UK)?

I would say that it is a ridiculous over-exaggeration to claim that, if Ukraine escalated to nuclear weapons, than that would mean the end of civilization.

 

[nw1]

I would say that it is a ridiculous over-exaggeration to claim that, if Ukraine escalated to nuclear weapons, than that would mean the end of civilization.

It might not mean the very end of civilisation (much of the Southern Hemisphere might be far enough away) but it would cause death and destruction on a huge scale. Enough to make any action with a significant risk of nuclear war a non-viable action. Would provocative actions be worth Kyiv, London or New York being obliterated in a nuclear blast?

This is not at all a defence of Putin, an utterly evil monster who needs to be brought before Nuremberg-style trials when this is over, and receive the death penalty. You can utterly loathe Putin and his monstrous invasion of Ukraine while still wishing to avoid nuclear conflict.

 

[GS250]

Trouble is that in nuclear war, everybody dies. There is nothing worse. It would be better to live under Putin than that.

If nuclear weapons did not exist I would support us getting involved directly. As they do I cannot.

Considering he's been held up by Ukraine then I think his chances of successfully invading Europe are remote. Imagine him trying to get through NATO countries?

At least though...we know where we stand with Russia. The illusion of it becoming more global has gone.

 

[najaB]

I think if we directly attacked Russian troops there would be a very high chance of it escalating to that.

Very high if we directly attacked Russian troops in Russia, but Russia's policy is to only use nuclear weapons if the integrity of the Russian state is under threat. It is unlikely that the generals* would consider escalating to a strategic nuclear strike if there was a conventional attack on Russian forces in another country.

*Note, it's the generals that matter, not Putin.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So you would consider the end of civilisation by way of global thermonuclear war preferable to Putin getting some of Ukraine (or even the UK)?

I wouldn't. I'd rather live under a despot than die pointlessly*. Bad leaders can always be removed later, it's happened many times over history.

* Very different from dying in a war where you were as an individual actively fighting against a despot.

Remember that there once was the time in Germany that there were people who lived under a despot and died pointlessly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that it is a ridiculous over-exaggeration to claim that, if Ukraine escalated to nuclear weapons, than that would mean the end of civilization.

A tactical nuke on Ukraine probably wouldn't, but any exchange with the West almost certainly would, at least in terms of most of what is north of the Equator.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

Remember that there once was the time in Germany that there were people who lived under a despot and died pointlessly.

Fewer than would die pointlessly in global thermonuclear conflict. Far fewer.

Nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia is to be avoided at all costs. And I mean that - all costs. I would rather the UK was occupied by Russia than a large scale nuclear exchange occured, not that that is in any way likely nor desirable in and of itself.