lens
Member
Posts: 831
Member is Online
|
Post by lens on Mar 6, 2022 14:59:39 GMT
Hi lens Physically and/or mentally. It's hardly the most authorative source I know ( ) but on the front page of todays Daily Star is a claim that Putin is suffering from Bowel cancer, is undergoing radiotheraphy and in constant pain. Normally I'd be quite sceptical of such (especially in the Daily Star) but it did make me think of your comment above....... It would also explain a lot (IMO), including his apparent fear of catching Covid. If he's undergoing chemotherapy and has a suppressed immune system......? And if he realises he is terminally ill, would also explain a recklessness and seeming lack of worry about personal consequences - just sees bringing Ukraine back within the "Russian Empire" before he dies his legacy......? Has anybody seen a more reliable source about Putin's rumoured physical and/or mental health?
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Mar 7, 2022 8:58:30 GMT
Lots of chat about the UN and Putins allies but IMO the UN is irrelevant. If Putin ignores / vetoes UK resolutions then you cannot put a country in jail. Same with treaties or other legal issues. They only work so far as the country they are being applied to accepts them. We might do so. Putin doesnt.
I continue to believe that Putin had deceived himself that the invasion would actually be liberating the Ukraine and would be welcomed by most. As a result he started pulling punches and is still doing so by comparison with what happened in Chechnya. But sadly there is no backing down possible so the more the resistance the greater will be the agression. Its far easier to start a war than to finish one as we found in Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
Looking back in history, war is part of the normal state of affairs. Does anyone see that changing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 15:18:25 GMT
@laszlo How far do you think the Belarus 'rebellion' might go? Do you think it might be possible that Lukashenko faces a coup? A large chunk of the Russian Army's supply chain relies on passage through Belarus - could that be compromised? I'm perhaps hoping for hope but if Belarus becomes 'neutral' that could have very significant implications and I hope 'the West' make every (reasonable) accommodation to Belarus if they stop being Putin's puppet (eg immediately revoke sanctions placed on Belarus the country - but not on Lukashenko the individual who must fail and be seen to have failed as a Putin puppet) I really don't know, but there is a new piece of news: Yanukovich (the former Ukrainian president) arrived to Minsk this morning (I don't think it is fake news). Well it's no surprise that Putin might have wanted to install Yanukovych as his 'puppet' but things are not going to Putin's Plan A. Does Putin have a Plan B or adopt one? By invading Ukraine on the West side of the Dnieper then he signalled 'Plan A' was to take the whole of Ukraine with one more big bite rather than nibble more bits off in the East. However, if it was supposed to take roughly 500k troops to 'hold' the whole of Ukraine (and he doesn't have those) then does he revert to a Plan B and just try to secure and hold the East? That convoy North of Kyiv isn't making much progress and it would obviously be a 'retreat' to back those troops up and deploy then East of Dnieper. However, a drawn out war across the whole of Ukraine, with NATO+ resupplying the Ukrainians from Poland will mean Russia eventually lose a war of attrition giving how strong a defence Ukrainians are putting up. A war of attrition doesn't suit NATO+ either. The economic pain of much higher nat.gas and oil prices when there was already a cost of living crisis is going to be challenging to bear into next Winter (and Biden has mid-terms later this year). I reckon there is no choice but for the 'Magic Money Tree' to come back out and soften the economic hit of higher gas+oil prices. That might also show Putin we're (collectively) prepared to take the pain of a drawn out war and possibly that changes Putin's calculations (not that anyone should assume he makes 'logic based' calculations). I haven't heard much talk of Finance Minister or Central Bank meetings to discuss the fiscal+economic issues. Maybe happening 'behind the scenes' but if not then that will need to happen very soon - especially if the 'rumours' of an imminent ban of Russian energy exports are true. There is a near de facto ban on oil already[1] and it is 'easier' to ban oil first. Far trickier WRT to nat.gas www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-europeans-discussing-banning-russian-oil-imports-blinken-says-2022-03-06/PS I'm not suggesting either side should up the ante for a 'quick' war, just that any hopes Putin might have had of Ukraine welcoming his troops or surrendering have clearly been shown to be false and any hope he had that NATO wouldn't even offer 'indirect' help also shown to be false. I'm very pleasantly surprised of the show of unity+strength from NATO+non-NATO and the strong defence that Ukraine is making which means Putin must be very unpleasantly surprised with how his Plan A is going (not that he'll admit it of course) [1] Being broken by likes of Shell, although unclear where they think they'll be able to unload and refine Russian crude oil?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 8:38:14 GMT
Putin (IMO) clearly getting nervous about the discussion of an oil embargo.. War in Ukraine: Russia says it may cut gas supplies if oil ban goes ahead www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60656673Countries need to show they'd take that pain if it speeds up the demise of Putin and ends the war - IMO of course. There is a near embargo on crude oil and LNG imports in to some countries (incl. UK) already so make it official and out the pressure on Putin. Sooner the better. Enough gas storage in C-E Europe to get through this Winter and if Putin (or at least his forces) are gone soon then anything that speeds that up is worth the short-term pain - especially as current prices are 'pricing in' high chance of embargo (ie we're feeling the pain whilst still sending €€billions every month to fund Putin's war)
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Mar 8, 2022 21:28:03 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 9, 2022 6:59:52 GMT
There was a news clip yesterday where Ukrainnians were shown making stinger mats to burst tyres.
Presumably the news we had before that rusians were scavenging tyres was because Ukainians are targeting tyres on vehicles using low tech methods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 9:22:37 GMT
"In an address on Russian state television, Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak said: “A rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market”, and claimed the price of oil could rise to more than US$300 a barrel. Novak cited Germany’s decision last month to halt the certification of Nord Stream 2, a secondary pipeline, saying: “We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline.”
Guardian
Germany gets 55% of its gas, 45% of its coal and 35% of its oil from Russia.
Times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 9:45:51 GMT
"In an address on Russian state television, Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak said: “A rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market”, and claimed the price of oil could rise to more than US$300 a barrel. Novak cited Germany’s decision last month to halt the certification of Nord Stream 2, a secondary pipeline, saying: “We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline.” Guardian Germany gets 55% of its gas, 45% of its coal and 35% of its oil from Russia. Times Novak obviously has an incentive to talk up the fear. For oil then the price will depend a lot on what OPEC+ do. Hence the 'diplomacy' in Iran and Venezuala and the need to push pressure on Saudi, etc to remind them who their friends are! There is finally a very welcomed rush of urgency in EC-EU to tackle their dependency on Russian gas/oil/coal and it was always a case of who hits the 'off' button first. Bruegel pieces were written on the assumption Putin would turn the gas off but we're now into early March so some of those numbers need updating (see also the piece @laszlo posted from them) www.bruegel.org/2022/01/can-europe-survive-painlessly-without-russian-gas/Bloomberg piece (reposted below) is more recent and along with all other research that I've read (and folks 'in the know' have read or written) then there is a massive amount that they can do fairly quickly (that will push up prices for everyone who relies on LNG and oil imports from non-Russian sources) but they are going to have to hope folks turn their heating down, the weather stays warm (for the rest of Winter and next Winter), it's windy and/or sunny most of time (a lot more than last year) and they are still likely to need to require some form of 'rationing' if Russia turns of the taps. www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-08/can-europe-weaken-putin-s-power-over-global-energyHowever, a small price for the West to pay given: "'Every penny paid to Russia turns into bullets and projectiles': Zelenskyy thanks the US for Russian oil ban"news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-every-penny-paid-to-russia-turns-into-bullets-and-projectiles-zelenskyy-thanks-the-us-for-russian-oil-ban-12561330Also of note is how 'diplomatic' US are being with those who have been so dependent on Russian gas/oil/coal. Quite how much of the decision making in Brussels and Berlin is being 'steered' by US is impossible to say and my concern is still 'where is all the money going to come from' but US could push a lot harder if they wanted to - forcing others to go as far as the US is prepared to go or face sanctions themselves. On balance (and IMO) then US are using their international diplomatic skills well but they have some things they need to do back home as well and in the short-term that will upset the 'Green' lobby (but could be a 'quid pro quo' of longer-term benefit to environmentalists - which is likely how EC-EU will spin the increased use of coal, etc that will be coming this year, maybe also spin a reversal on some countries' nuclear views and some countries' views on new nat.gas drilling licences?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 10:05:46 GMT
"In an address on Russian state television, Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak said: “A rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market”, and claimed the price of oil could rise to more than US$300 a barrel. Novak cited Germany’s decision last month to halt the certification of Nord Stream 2, a secondary pipeline, saying: “We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline.” Guardian Germany gets 55% of its gas, 45% of its coal and 35% of its oil from Russia. Times Novak obviously has an incentive to talk up the fear. For oil then the price will depend a lot on what OPEC+ do. Hence the 'diplomacy' in Iran and Venezuala and the need to push pressure on Saudi, etc to remind them who their friends are! There is finally a very welcomed rush of urgency in EC-EU to tackle their dependency on Russian gas/oil/coal and it was always a case of who hits the 'off' button first. Bruegel pieces were written on the assumption Putin would turn the gas off but we're now into early March so some of those numbers need updating (see also the piece @laszlo posted from them) www.bruegel.org/2022/01/can-europe-survive-painlessly-without-russian-gas/Bloomberg piece (reposted below) is more recent and along with all other research that I've read (and folks 'in the know' have read or written) then there is a massive amount that they can do fairly quickly (that will push up prices for everyone who relies on LNG and oil imports from non-Russian sources) but they are going to have to hope folks turn their heating down, the weather stays warm (for the rest of Winter and next Winter), it's windy and/or sunny most of time (a lot more than last year) and they are still likely to need to require some form of 'rationing' if Russia turns of the taps. www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-08/can-europe-weaken-putin-s-power-over-global-energyHowever, a small price for the West to pay given: "'Every penny paid to Russia turns into bullets and projectiles': Zelenskyy thanks the US for Russian oil ban"news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-every-penny-paid-to-russia-turns-into-bullets-and-projectiles-zelenskyy-thanks-the-us-for-russian-oil-ban-12561330Also of note is how 'diplomatic' US are being with those who have been so dependent on Russian gas/oil/coal. Quite how much of the decision making in Brussels and Berlin is being 'steered' by US is impossible to say and my concern is still 'where is all the money going to come from' but US could push a lot harder if they wanted to - forcing others to go as far as the US is prepared to go or face sanctions themselves. On balance (and IMO) then US are using their international diplomatic skills well but they have some things they need to do back home as well and in the short-term that will upset the 'Green' lobby (but could be a 'quid pro quo' of longer-term benefit to environmentalists - which is likely how EC-EU will spin the increased use of coal, etc that will be coming this year, maybe also spin a reversal on some countries' nuclear views and some countries' views on new nat.gas drilling licences?) Thanks. Interesting stuff. Russia is ( was !) the second biggest gas supplier on the planet. Walking away from that is a massive ask. When you hear Lavrov talking about a return to "Cold War" relations you can imagine this is not going to go away quickly. However it is resolved technically and logistically, the domestic politics aspect will surely be huge. Energy costs will hit families very hard. Times reports Germany already has the highest elec. bills in Europe -and the Government doesn't measure fuel poverty. Can Net Zero targets and the Green Agenda sustain ? I mean across the Continent including UK? Still -as Jan Bohmermann is reported in the Times -"Just you tell the Kharkiv families hiding in their basement how furious a petrol price of E2 ,akes you ".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 10:30:17 GMT
Can Net Zero targets and the Green Agenda sustain ? I mean across the Continent including UK? Still -as Jan Bohmermann is reported in the Times -"Just you tell the Kharkiv families hiding in their basement how furious a petrol price of E2 ,akes you ". I hope it is merely a temporal shift. With fossil prices so high then renewables and nuclear are relatively a lot cheaper so it makes purely economic sense to invest more heavily in those (but that takes time to come on-stream). I keep mentioning the money side as that is key. The World dug deep into future generations pockets via QE to get through Covid. By comparison the cost of speeding up the move to 'net Zero' is much smaller and I expect vast majority will now agree very urgent (but it takes time and we will have to take a small step backwards in the next few years at a national (not global[1]) level as we substitute Russian gas/oil/coal for domestic/non-Russian sources) [1] See all the stuff I've posted about exporting jobs and reimporting a higher carbon footprint. British gas/oil/coal for British businesses and consumers, etc. Kwarteng, Truss and a few others are of the 'diversify' imports type and the domestic green lobbies in each country only look at domestic targets (which is somewhat valid due to the 'not my polity' issue of being able to make other countries do what needed needs to be done). Hence my comment that Kwarteng needs to WAKE UP In a few cases the net carbon impact is -ve (eg Germany is going to have to burn more coal and less gas in the next few years for electricity) but in some cases it would be net +ve (eg UK can increase some production of local pipeline gas rather than import LNG (with all the freezing/travel/regasification impact) from more distance sources - also domestic coal (but that might a trickier one to convince folks on) and I certainly don't want to encourage folks to think fracking is back on the short-list of options, for the main reason that it would take too long to be of much help and gas is only to be used as a 'bridge' anyway)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 10:39:46 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 9, 2022 10:43:13 GMT
I keep mentioning the money side as that is key. The World dug deep into future generations pockets via QE to get through Covid. By comparison the cost of speeding up the move to 'net Zero' is much smaller and I expect vast majority will now agree very urgent (but it takes time and we will have to take a small step backwards in the next few years at a national (not global[1]) level as we substitute Russian gas/oil/coal for domestic/non-Russian sources) The UK has not used government funding to drive decarbonisation but has relied upon the private sector. The private sector is driven by profit, so much of it sees no sense in doing anything. Hence our dismal failure to switch to renewables. We could have had in place governmennt funding for insulation and energy saving, but the current administration cancelled it. This is something which could be resmed and have savings by next winter. Although it is also possible this war will be over by next winter and a mutual agreement will have been made to restore Russian fuel supplies before then. Obviously thats what Ruussia has assumed will happen. Although that doesnt change the desireability of cutting our energy usage regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 13:25:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 13:38:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 15:06:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 17:31:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2022 13:49:11 GMT
Technically the two lines from UK into EU should be in dark blue and some other errors in vdL's slide pack but the penny is perhaps starting to drop?
/photo/1
The 2027 date is certainly achievable[1] if they are serious about it. This year's target is.. well.. let's just say 'very optimistic' (without demand rationing), especially given the timeline of when various decisions will be made.
I'll criticise the UK as well. Kwarteng needs to act far more urgently.
[1] /photo/1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2022 19:49:37 GMT
Looks like extending nuclear is not going to happen ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2022 9:18:08 GMT
Some End Game suggestions in today's Times :-
"Negotiated settlement
Although diplomatic talks have stalled so far, either side could be forced to come to some sort of agreement to end the fighting. James Rogers, director of research at the Council on Geostrategy, a British think tank, believes that a negotiated settlement is quite possible, though it may only be temporary. “The Ukrainians [aided by western weapons] may be able to put up further resistance for weeks, months or even years,” he said. “The Kremlin may seek to off-ramp, to seize what it has secured, and walk away.” Such a move would require a demoralised Ukrainian army that sees no way of being able to force Russia to retreat. Rogers said that at this point there could be an internationally backed settlement, involving recognition of annexed Crimea, as Russian territory. It may then involve UN peacekeepers deployed to the “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk to the east, and all Russian troops withdrawing from the remainder of Ukrainian territory. “Any combination is possible,” Rogers said. What happens after that depends on Putin and his objectives, he added. It might only be a temporary respite for Ukraine, leading to another offensive in the future.
Victory for Ukraine Western military chiefs are determined to hand over as many weapons to Ukraine as possible in the belief that several days of pain are inflicted on the Russians for every day the Ukrainian armed forces can hold them back. This is because Ukraine was ill-equipped for a sustained military campaign, with some troops said to have had only three days of rations. “The slower this is for Russia, the better for Ukraine,” Robert Clark, defence fellow at the Civitas think tank, said. “Russian troops will soon require rotating as they’ve lived in vehicles for months. This will place further strain on their chaotic logistical chain and cause further delays and loss of momentum, again giving Ukraine further time to shore up defences.” Clark believes that Ukraine could continue to “bleed Russia dry” in the weeks ahead both in terms of manpower and resources. “They cannot keep going at this rate of loss,” he said. Clark predicted that the Russians could sustain the current level of fighting for only another four to six weeks. After that could see further degradation of the military and an inability to seize Kyiv. “If they [Ukraine] keep doing what they are doing, which is slowly grinding the Russian advance down, there could be some form of stalemate,” he said. “If they can keep Kyiv out of Russian hands that is as good as a victory.” Some analysts believe it is possible, in such circumstances, that Putin could be ousted by key players in the Kremlin.
Defeat for Ukraine
Western officials believe that Putin’s primary objective is to take Kyiv and topple President Zelensky’s government. Although Russia has faced many problems and not secured its initial objectives, the weight of Russian firepower bears down on Ukraine. Putin has still used only a fraction of the air power at his disposal and if more jets are flown in key cities could be levelled to the ground. The Russians could slowly strangle Kyiv, cutting it off from food and fuel supplies and forcing Zelensky to surrender — or face the prospect of bombs and missiles raining down on the capital, killing tens of thousands of his own people. Before it even gets to that stage, the Ukrainian president could be murdered by mercenaries. If that happens, Ukrainian forces might lose momentum and Russian troops could move across the country. Cormac Smith, a former British official who advised the Ukrainian government for two years, said that the more the West “cowed” then the “more likely Ukraine will eventually be overwhelmed militarily”. He said the West’s decision to rule out a no-fly zone and its failure to provide arms quickly enough had emboldened Putin. He said: “We need to put down a red line and it needs to be far ahead of nuclear strike.”
Putin takes more territory
An emboldened Putin could decide to try to take more territory — something for which Nato is preparing by bolstering defences on its eastern flank. He could, for example, attack countries that neighbour Ukraine, blaming them for shipping in weapons. Earlier in the week a British military source said that during times of war an enemy supply base could be considered a legitimate target. The UK has been “desperately worried” about weapons going in and out, fearing that airfields in Nato countries used to supply them could come under attack. Using that as a pretext for war, Putin could move forces across the border into Poland, Moldova, or try to take the Baltic States. Nato would fight back but by then there would be a wider war in Europe in which anything could happen. The West would have to balance defence of Nato members with avoidance of escalation across the Continent.
Nuclear conflict
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, believes that the West will not have to fight Putin, because after the invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces would be “exhausted”. At that point, some analysts believe that the West cannot assume Putin’s “rationality” will rule out nuclear war. A desperate man, humiliated with his forces depleted, could think there is nothing for him to lose by launching a shorter-range tactical nuclear weapon at a nearby state. General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander of Joint Forces Command, says that a nuclear war is a “remote prospect given the result is mutual destruction of Russia and the West”. He said, however, that when dealing with two fundamentally irreconcilable world views, and the prospect of Putin’s failure in Ukraine, “you can see what appears to most people as unthinkable somehow becomes an option”.
Putin will double down more than the West wants to, and the two sides could end up on a ladder of escalation in which Putin decides to give the green light for a nuclear strike."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2022 9:38:40 GMT
""We are winning this fight, but not this war," he says. The governor said a relatively weak Russian force had underestimated local resistance and expected to "be greeted with flowers", but Russian reinforcements and planes could quickly turn the tide and enable the Kremlin to capture the whole Black Sea coastline. "We need a closed sky," BBC www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60711659
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 9:55:51 GMT
I see Raab is off to The Hague to talk to the ICC prosecutor and offer UK expertise and specialists. Who is going to adjudicate on the West's response to Zelensky and his people ? Putin pulled Russia out of the ICC in 2016:
Russia withdraws from International Criminal Court treatywww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38005282
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 10:13:40 GMT
I see Raab is off to The Hague to talk to the ICC prosecutor and offer UK expertise and specialists. Who is going to adjudicate on the West's response to Zelensky and his people ? Putin pulled Russia out of the ICC in 2016:
Russia withdraws from International Criminal Court treatywww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38005282Smart move. He has been putting his ducks in order for years-in plain sight. The West saw but failed to understand that he meant it. What will history say of our failure? With the Saudis executing "deviants" looks like the Middle East is no go for more gas . China is problematic. India we arent sure of. Getting tougher for Liberal Democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 10:43:22 GMT
colin I'm not sure what 'the West' can do using current legal/diplomatic means in their current form but the ICC route was shut down when Putin pulled Russia out. UN are hamstrung due to Russia's veto on P5 but that would IMO be area that needs increased focussed. If UN can't do anything against Russia as Russia has a veto then seems to be Russia needs to lose that veto (or at least be threatened that they'll lose it unless they end the war and withdraw their troops from Ukraine) UN is not longer fit for purpose and Putin is running rings around the 'liberal democracies' which, beyond allowing him to get away with war crimes, also encourages other autocracies to continue with their own human rights abuses. 'Persona non grata' and 'pariah status' should IMO mean that Russia can't use the very structures that are supposed to prevent his kind of actions from taking place, to go unpunished at a global diplomatic (and military) level. Small measures like removing MFN status at WTO are perhaps part of the 'death by 1,000 cuts' approach but IMO we (the vast majority of the World, as seen by UN vote in general council) need to turn the tables and 'revise' the role of UN such that Putin can no longer use it to block a global response. I don't see NATO changing their approach without UN backing, hence the need for something in UN to change. Might not make a difference and Putin might pull Russia back behind an even darker Iron Curtain than USSR but I doubt China wants to share a bed with Putin if Putin is totally ostracised from rWorld. NB All IMO. Links to the UN votes, etc available upon request or easy to find via google.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 11:34:02 GMT
colin Putin is running rings around the 'liberal democracies' which, beyond allowing him to get away with war crimes, also encourages other autocracies to continue with their own human rights abuses. Yes. I agree. Ukrainians are paying with their lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 13:07:11 GMT
This is Putin's Ukraine model :-
"Vladimir Putin's occupiers have also installed a new mayor of Melitopol after kidnapping the first mayor earlier in the week. Galina Danilchenko, a former member of the city council, was announced as the new mayor on local TV on Saturday, according to the Zaporizhzhia regional administration website. CNN and Sky News reported Danilchenko was introduced as the acting mayor on local TV without an election, replacing Ivan Fedorov, the elected mayor of Melitopol. Danilchenko said her main task is to 'take all necessary steps to get the city back to normal', in a televised statement the administration posted on Telegram. She claimed people in Melitopol would try to 'destabilize the situation' and 'provoke a reaction'.
'I ask you to keep your wits about you and not to give in to these provocations,' Danilchenko said. 'I appeal to the deputies, elected by the people, on all levels. Since you were elected by the people, it is your duty to care about the well-being of your citizens.' She then proposed the creation of a 'People's Choice Committee' to help administer the Melitopol region."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 13:36:29 GMT
This is Putin's Ukraine model :- "Vladimir Putin's occupiers have also installed a new mayor of Melitopol... Hitler's Vichy France model. However, several major differences 1/ No "Dunkirk" equivalent as no one was in Ukraine trying to defend it before Putin invaded 2/ Ukraine 2022 are currently putting up a much stronger resistance than the Battle of France (10 May – 25 June 1940) 3/ Putin has nukes (Hitler did not) 4/ Given #3 and #1 then I doubt they'll be a "D-Day" equivalent 5/ Belarus are not yet as fully involved as Italy became, see Italian invasion of France (10–25 June 1940) Putin probably didn't expect #2 and probably also over-estimated the Russian armies abilities, so Kyiv hasn't fallen. Still TBC on #5 but #3 is the reason NATO are not going to up the stakes. We're (NATO + non-NATO countries) already testing Putin by sending Ukraine weapons and I commented t'other day on the hope we are planning ahead for possible escalation. Still a lot more we can on the 'economic' and 'diplomatic' (non-military) side IMO. FWIU we are now sending them cutting edge weapons, short of planes (which have to be flown in and hence NATO have backed away from doing that for fear of escalation) I'll also post two relevant polling questions from Opinium and
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 14:11:08 GMT
A negotiated peace where the rump of Ukraine stays sovereign and there is autonomy for the Donbass might be better than going back to the slow cooking civil war in Eastern Ukraine. Sone sort of role for NATO in terms of keeping the peace though, even if under UN flags. I don't disagree with that but a few points: 1/ There has already been Minsk I and Minsk II attempts to negotiate a 'peace', using the Normandy Format 2/ 'Autonomy' for what Putin is calling the 'Independent' states of Donetsk and Luhansk means accepting they are Putin's puppets (and the exact line drawn on a map would be disputed given the Oblast (regions) lines were different to the previous areas under Russian backed control - eg: Mariupol is under siege from Russian forces but is inside Donetsk Oblast) 3/ Russia is part of P5 on UN Security Council so they can veto any 'UN' mission (as they did on 26Feb[1]). NATO could act without UN authority but that would lack 'legitimacy' and risk escalation. I'm not going to speculate on what Putin might 'accept' but I very much doubt he'll accept the previous lines on the map , 'genuine' autonomy for the pre 24Feb Russian held parts of Donetsk and Luhansk and NATO forces in the 'rump' of Ukraine. For info on #1+2 see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements[1] news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 14:57:44 GMT
I was going to enter into the Ukraine discussion really, as it's all too depressing, and I don't see any way out. But one thing that does grate a little is this 'whiff of Munich' business. It's thrown around too much as an accusation of what's happening now. It's too late, we've already had the 'Munich' moment. There may not have been an official agreement, but we've been tacitly letting Russia do what they like for years, including pumping money and dependency into the UK and many other countries. The hope was, if we turn a blind eye, Russia would come round eventually. I'm not saying I was any different, I didn't predict it would come to a head like this, but in hindsight, the Munich moment was probably at least when Russia took Crimea. Where we are now is not only the fault of the current politicians and their tactics, negotiating or not, it's years of appeasement. History never repeats but it often rhymes: Anschluss: annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany, 12 March 1938. Sudetenland cessation: a chunk of Czechoslovakia 'given' to Hitler, 15 Sep 1938 Munich agreement: 30 Sep 1938 Hitler invades Poland: 1 Sep 1939 The 'pivotal' year was Hitler's Gamble in 1938. For a longer read see: www.basicbooks.com/titles/giles-macdonogh/1938/9780465020126/By all means 'fit' Putin's aggression to compare to Hitler's gamble (the gaps in the timeline are different but the major milestones not that dissimilar IMO). UK was 'forced' into war with Nazi Germany after Hitler invaded Poland (announcing war on 3 Sep 1939). We're not at that point yet but if Putin attacks a NATO country then via Article 5 of NATO treaty then we might well be at war with Putin's Russia. Major difference is UK's role, which was significant in 1938 'appeasement' with Nazi Germany but insignificant between 2014-now with Putin's Russia. The Normandy Format countries being France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia (with very rarely extensions to include Italy, (Cameron) UK). US and hence NATO (as that is very much a US+ alliance) have had virtually no involvement going to back to Obama years and then Trump's lack of interest in 'foreign/forever' wars. Biden did approve significant weapon shipments to Ukraine going back to before 24 Feb'22 and some folks might compare that to the 'lend-lease' programme (with the timeline of that 'official' intervention being a bit earlier than in WW2, although IMO it is fair to say US was giving UK some help prior to 1941) Above all factual info but if you want any supporting links then please ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 15:18:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 13, 2022 21:40:45 GMT
In the light of Putin's nuclear threats I would like to think that the Defence Staff and government are digging out Cold War plans for maintenance of some sort of continuity after the nukes hit. Nothing has been said publicly presumably for fear of causing mass panic, but I hope that some planning is being done just in case.
|
|