Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 12, 2022 7:56:20 GMT
pjw1961 - "The doubling in size of the border with NATO when Finland joins surely puts at risk any strategic gains Putin hoped to gain through military aggression. Hopefully this will also increase internal opposition in the military and security services." Yes, that's really what I'm getting at here. I don't feel I'm being wildly optimistic, but rather it seems abundantly clear that Putin has made a catastrophic blunder and as a result has seen a dramatic combination of military reversal, strategic disaster and severe economic decline, none of which is going to be undone quickly, if at all. It isnt just that Russia's invasion has frightened non aligned countries into joining NATO, the fact of the destruction and engagement of the Russian army in Ukraine means there could not be any immediate retaliation. There is a time window now for the process of joining NATO and integrating defences during which Russia is literally unable to respond militarily. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on May 12, 2022 8:03:26 GMT
Interesting polling from Yahoo news on the U.S. in how the rise of the right wing can undermine public confidence in institutions In 2020 just after the death of Ruth Ginsburg 73% of Americans expressed some or a lot of confidence in the U.S. Supreme court. Since the appointment of Trumps nominees this has dropped to just 50%. The current removal of rights, criminalizing of peaceful protest, criminalizing those who assist asylum seekers and criminalizing being a refugee by our own corrupt right wing regime, together with their own blatant flouting of the law and moral and ethical standards, risks the same undermining of public confidence in the institutions of the legal framework. Which presumably is their intent. If you produce a situation where the public expect the executive to be self serving crooks it's easier to excuse anything. or maybe,in America, as the article concludes, "So while politicization is a problem that everyone seems to recognize, and bemoan, declining confidence in the court probably has less to do with protocol than policy. A growing number of Americans — Democrats, independents and even some Republicans — disapprove of the Supreme Court for the simple reason that they disagree with its new direction." uk.news.yahoo.com/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-has-collapsed-since-conservatives-took-control-122402500.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKPjOwRt32QjZicEsbG1NQPDlgB8sM4HBz29-1KJtGZ0_MmVrqv31PoJU5TOcq9klBXCoVdiaZE8aObrpVGvr6bFWnxOIa3pL8iXbaud-E9gLe-faSuGauN1vR8YavFcKicGCIElMLV4mbJW6Vls2HK0xq2gCiUnv-HIVbRxetjI |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 12, 2022 8:03:37 GMT
@danny - "You love pushing long term risks from having had covid, but there is really still no evidence it is worse than all the other diseases we catch and work through."
Yes there is. An absolute mountain of evidence. Other viral infections do bring long term harms, but no other virus to date has expressed the ability for such a high prevalence and wide range of persistent symptoms across multiple organ systems. You are simply totally wrong on this.
"You have never responded to the argument that slowing infection does not cut total of cases."
Yes I have, repeatedly. It's just that you've never listened.
"Yes it really is. and we still havn't got to the problem that vaccines don't work very well, so it is likely people will in the long run do better relying on their own immune systems to choose what antibodies to make and build a lifetime lasting immunity."
No, these measures are not expensive, and would actually save much more than they cost. [In general terms, investment in public health is the most cost effective investment a society can make, with a return of £34 for every £1 invested, according to the NAO. My guess is that it would be higher than this for covid prevention measures, which are very cheap but with a huge beneficial impact].
No, people won't do better relying on infection and 'natural immunity'. They'll just get sick. In the same post you've actually already argued that catching bugs brings long term impacts as a matter of course, and now you are saying it's a benefit? Sort your thinking out.
Just to reiterate, there is no difference in the rate or severity of long covid after primary or repeat infection, so the idea that constantly getting covid will be a good thing is wrong; every time you catch it, you roll the dice again on long covid. Vaccines help reduce that risk by around 50%, but you are still at something like a 1 in 10 chance.
I'm not expecting you to accept any of this, as you are a deliberate contrarian who does this for a perverse sense of fun, but I will continue to point out your errors so others can hopefully be exposed to the facts a little more.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 12, 2022 8:04:23 GMT
It is good that you are back Colin to provide balance to Alec's relentless over-optimism on Ukraine, but some of this is too pessimistic. I don't buy Alec's idea Russia is about to collapse - Putin will persist regardless, as he has no other choice - but they are not going anywhere very fast in the Donbas, and the idea they have the combat power to take Odessa and the remaining Black Sea coastline is highly improbable. For example the force in Transnistria amounts to about 1,500 Russians and 7,500 locals, all configured for territorial defence. The Ukrainian estimate of the offensive capability of the forces there is roughly one battalion - say 800 men. Obviously they could also try to attack from Kherson, but the Ukrainians have successfully held that line for months now. Zelensky has explicitly stated that he has no intention of allowing it to become a frozen conflict and I think only heavy losses to the Ukrainian forces as they start to use the offensive weapons they are (far too belatedly) being sent would change his mind. I agree that Russia's invasion has created new political and economic realities, but the West's determination to continue pouring ever more powerful weaponry into Ukraine seems pretty solid at present and a sanctioned Russia won't be able to match it in the long run.
The war currently has moved into an attrition phase, and is largely a conventional war (not the a-symmetrical guerrilla type war many initially anticipated). Russia is not currently showing any signs of capitulation and the sounds from Kyiv are moving strongly away from negotiating a settlement (currently they probably think with Western aid they can win the war and regain Crimea and the Donbass). Compromise looks highly unlikely with both sides going for the win.
Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet (potentially they could field an army of many millions) are not completely isolated and the regime still has domestic support. They may have lost 600 odd tanks - but they allegedly have as many as 12,000 (which while not all battle ready they can be repaired etc and put in the field). There have been signs for a while that they were effectively rationing their use of smart weapons - in case the war dragged on. The lesson from Syria was that persistence and ruthlessness pays off - in the early stages Assad was on the verge of defeat and no one expected him to last. Moscow is aware the situation both on the battle field and internationally can change - and they have the capacity to dig in and wait things out. We don't know what economic and political impact across the globe the effect on energy and food supplies the conflict will have - but high prices are part of the cause of what is currently happening in Colombo.
On balance, unless something dramatic does happen (such as a mass rout of the Russian army and collapse of moral - such as happened in 1917) the signs are the conflict will be protracted. The West has to be careful, because if it does explicitly and overtly take steps to precipitate a quick Russian defeat it may result in a rapid escalation - potentially including the use of battlefield nukes (which is part of Russian military doctrine).
Longer term the question we should be asking is that will this end if Putin is removed from the equation? Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook or is this being driven by the agency of one individual? the answer to this should help define what is the West's strategy and objective in regards to Russia - if we are not clear on this our ability to engage and participate in a longer conflict (however it may look) will be limited as ultimately proved in Afghanistan.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2022 8:11:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 12, 2022 8:13:10 GMT
Just out - www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00126-6/fulltext"Regardless of initial disease severity, COVID-19 survivors had longitudinal improvements in physical and mental health, with most returning to their original work within 2 years [89%, so that means over 1 in 10 couldn't return to normal work after two years]; however, the burden of symptomatic sequelae remained fairly high. COVID-19 survivors had a remarkably lower health status than the general population at 2 years. The study findings indicate that there is an urgent need to explore the pathogenesis of long COVID and develop effective interventions to reduce the risk of long COVID."
My emphasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on May 12, 2022 8:14:41 GMT
Re Ukraine, the most hopeful thing I've read this week is that at the various Victory Day parades all over Russia, in which ordinary people take part, there wasn't much displaying of the 'Z' sign. I really hope this means public support isn't quite as widespread as is being reported.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 12, 2022 8:15:01 GMT
Martin Kettle with a pessimistic view of where the UK, as a nation state, currently finds itself:
"One-nation Conservatism has never seemed more remote than it does today. However, the same is also true of other shared ideas of Britain. We still call ourselves the United Kingdom. But the local elections again exposed a nation state whose union is weakening, whose rival visions are sharper than ever and whose kingdom is even uncertain.
David Miliband put it well in a speech last weekend, when he said that a modern idea of Britain remains trapped between “the obsolete and the utopian”. This is a country, Miliband argued, that is badly in need of a new national project of reform. That case will only strengthen as the pressures on the union and the constitution mount up. Yet we are still led, to our shared loss, by a prime minister whose only project is himself."
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 12, 2022 8:16:26 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 12, 2022 8:18:05 GMT
It is good that you are back Colin to provide balance to Alec's relentless over-optimism on Ukraine, but some of this is too pessimistic. I don't buy Alec's idea Russia is about to collapse - Putin will persist regardless, as he has no other choice - but they are not going anywhere very fast in the Donbas, and the idea they have the combat power to take Odessa and the remaining Black Sea coastline is highly improbable. For example the force in Transnistria amounts to about 1,500 Russians and 7,500 locals, all configured for territorial defence. The Ukrainian estimate of the offensive capability of the forces there is roughly one battalion - say 800 men. Obviously they could also try to attack from Kherson, but the Ukrainians have successfully held that line for months now. Zelensky has explicitly stated that he has no intention of allowing it to become a frozen conflict and I think only heavy losses to the Ukrainian forces as they start to use the offensive weapons they are (far too belatedly) being sent would change his mind. I agree that Russia's invasion has created new political and economic realities, but the West's determination to continue pouring ever more powerful weaponry into Ukraine seems pretty solid at present and a sanctioned Russia won't be able to match it in the long run.
The war currently has moved into an attrition phase, and is largely a conventional war (not the a-symmetrical guerrilla type war many initially anticipated). Russia is not currently showing any signs of capitulation and the sounds from Kyiv are moving strongly away from negotiating a settlement (currently they probably think with Western aid they can win the war and regain Crimea and the Donbass). Compromise looks highly unlikely with both sides going for the win.
Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet (potentially they could field an army of many millions) are not completely isolated and the regime still has domestic support. They may have lost 600 odd tanks - but they allegedly have as many as 12,000 (which while not all battle ready they can be repaired etc and put in the field). There have been signs for a while that they were effectively rationing their use of smart weapons - in case the war dragged on. The lesson from Syria was that persistence and ruthlessness pays off - in the early stages Assad was on the verge of defeat and no one expected him to last. Moscow is aware the situation both on the battle field and internationally can change - and they have the capacity to dig in and wait things out. We don't know what economic and political impact across the globe the effect on energy and food supplies the conflict will have - but high prices are part of the cause of what is currently happening in Colombo.
On balance, unless something dramatic does happen (such as a mass rout of the Russian army and collapse of moral - such as happened in 1917) the signs are the conflict will be protracted. The West has to be careful, because if it does explicitly and overtly take steps to precipitate a quick Russian defeat it may result in a rapid escalation - potentially including the use of battlefield nukes (which is part of Russian military doctrine).
Longer term the question we should be asking is that will this end if Putin is removed from the equation? Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook or is this being driven by the agency of one individual? the answer to this should help define what is the West's strategy and objective in regards to Russia - if we are not clear on this our ability to engage and participate in a longer conflict (however it may look) will be limited as ultimately proved in Afghanistan.
"Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet" - I keep reading this. What are they waiting for, the Ukrainians to take Rostov on Don? (joking..). |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on May 12, 2022 8:19:39 GMT
Longer term the question we should be asking is that will this end if Putin is removed from the equation? Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook or is this being driven by the agency of one individual? the answer to this should help define what is the West's strategy and objective in regards to Russia - if we are not clear on this our ability to engage and participate in a longer conflict (however it may look) will be limited as ultimately proved in Afghanistan.
That last para. LLL Rather obtuse. You are Laura Kuenssberg and I claim my free Brillo pad. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on May 12, 2022 8:31:26 GMT
"Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet" - I keep reading this. What are they waiting for, the Ukrainians to take Rostov on Don? (joking..). A Russian view on mobilisation www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUlgd7HZtYU |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 12, 2022 8:32:43 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter " Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook or is this being driven by the agency of one individual? the answer to this should help define what is the West's strategy and objective in regards to Russia" - The answer imo is simple. European security since 1945 has been in no small part based on the stability brought by the concept of the post 1945 borders being inviolable regardless of any desire by any group to change them. Even in Ex-Yugoslavia the borders of the current states remain those of the previous Yugoslav federal entities. This principle was learnt due to the chaos that ensued after ww1 with borders moving all over the place and divisive plebiscites in East Prussia and Upper Silesia for example. Russia on the other hand has, since 1991 operated with the mindset that the Soviet Union still exists in some ghost form where the borders of ex Soviet republics (Baltics excepted perhaps but probably only as they are in NATO) are somehow not real international frontiers but lines in the sand which Russia can alter if needed. A post war settlement with Russia simply makes incredibly clear that there is no ghost Soviet Union and that the borders between ex Soviet republics are as inviolable in international law as for example another recently constructed border, that between Germany and Poland. That Russia has no greater right to violate Kazakhstan say that it does to violate Japan.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2022 8:33:16 GMT
Suella Braverman whose knowledge of international treaty law is comparable to Ant and Decs expertise in quantum mechanics has declared breaking international treaty law legal.
Well if a former junior planning law lawyer thinks it's ok!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 8:33:23 GMT
I heard a military expert talking yesterday about how the quagmired invasion may well be draining the Russian coffers of £1 billion a day. Nicely matched by the $30bn per month of oil/gas revenues from EU alone since end Feb. ( Guardian) |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 12, 2022 8:43:39 GMT
Hi domjg "Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet" - I keep reading this. What are they waiting for, the Ukrainians to take Rostov on Don? (joking..). Your guess is as good as mine. Most probably they want to minimise the impact/burden on the Russian people, or feel the Russian public is not ready for it. They may have calculated they can win a war off attrition without having to push the button on full mobilisation.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on May 12, 2022 8:49:46 GMT
Seems to be a big turnaround on Ukraine's view of Germany recently
'Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba praised Germany’s response to the war with Russia during a visit to Berlin, saying that the country had now taken a leading role. There had been some tensions in Berlin-Kyiv relations earlier in the war.
In an interview with German broadcaster ARD, Kuleba said there had been positive changes, after Germany decided to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine and back a proposed EU embargo on Russian oil following pressure from its allies.'
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2022 8:50:48 GMT
Victoria Atkins, the prisons minister, was the government’s representative on the airwaves this morning. She told Sky News that she thought her Tory MP colleague Lee Anderson was wrong when he told the Commons yesterday that there was no great need for food banks in Britain and that the real problem was people not being able to cook properly. She said:
This is not the view of me or anyone else in government. We want to give not just immediate help but longer-term support as well.
She also claimed that Anderson’s comments may have been misinterpreted, because he was specifically referring to the situation with his local food bank.
Because as we all know it's always been possible to prepare meals for a day for 30p in Ashfield.
Wtf has the location got to do with the stupidity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 9:02:45 GMT
pjw1961 and colin - I don't think I'm being relentlessly optimistic on Ukraine - just reflecting mainstream western analysts opinion, tbh. I should perhaps clarify though, that when I talk about seeing another Russian retreat soon, I'm not talking about a wholesale withdrawal, more a further shrinking of the operational area that Putin is focused on. They are already retreating in the areas around Kkarkiv and the city is likely soon to be out of range for their artillery, and this could set the conditions for further tactical withdrawals around Izyum to the south. But it's also important to note that Ukraine has been recapturing territory around Kherson, and there is pressure here too on the occupiers. The bottom line is that I don't think Putin has the numbers to successfully hold the territory he already has, and the Ukrainian resistance has punctured the air of inevitability that we all had at the outset of the war. That's a really important point, because if we are talking about Russia subsuming new territories through fake elections, the popular image of Russia as a creaking oligarchy that struggles on the battlefield will encourage continued mass resistance and make Putin's plans very hard to enact. He can't start mobilizing his reserves without declaring a state of emergency, which he has declined to do so far, and his overall strategy on Ukraine is now muddled and illogical. My guess is he is banking on global food crises and economic pain to reach a point where he can use that, instead of his failed threats of military power, to negotiate some form of settlement. But his economy is shrinking 10% this year, and the impacts are only just starting to kick in, so the clock is ticking for him too. Avril Haines-US Director of national intelligence is reported as saying Putin is in for the long haul and has become "more unpredictable and escalatory". Haines says he will use nuclear tactical weapons in response to perceived threat of "losing". The trouble with all of this is that no one knows the extent of his ambition now. Also of note ( unless I have this wrong) is Zelensky's stated objective is the Feb 23 status-ie LPR/DPR/Crimea still under Russian occupation. I cannot escape the feeling that Putin is tactically withdrawing from the North to consolidate in the East and join Crimea by land with Transnistria. I take the point about manpower resources to hold this vast area. But what worries me is Putin's willingness ( preference ?) to take territory, not buildings and people. The bombardment by artillery & rockets has been brutal -a terror weapon to kill or disperse the civilian population. The rockets which destroyed that Odessa supermarket a couple of days ago can fly at five times the speed of sound and have a range of 1,995 kilometres. What defence is there against that? Remember-Putin said he believes that Ukraine has no right to exist. The other thing which weighs heavily with me is getting our mindset right about this. Yesterday the Finnish President said that his country now realises that Russia does nor respect Finland's freedom to choose Neutrality-because it has invaded a neighbouring country. He said when asked about reaction to a Finnish application to join NATO that Putin had brought this about and shoukld " look in the mirror". At that Press Conference BJ was asked why spending £2bn helping Ukraine and defending Finland and Sweden was necessary when British voters could not afford to buy electricity or food. He said that it simply has to be done. I thought that was a difficult question-and an awkward answer.........until the excellent Deborah Haynes commented on it for Sky. She has been in Ukraine since Feb 24..She said that Ukrainians with no food, healthcare or houses have one priority-to stay alive whilst the rockets and missiles come down on them. Sauli Niinistö was saying-that could be us too -so our priorities change. So was Johnson. The Baltic States , Poland, Slovakia , Romania and Czech Republic have been saying it for some time. This is a huge change in Western European Security dynamics & thinking. With it come huge economic consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 12, 2022 9:03:58 GMT
I heard a military expert talking yesterday about how the quagmired invasion may well be draining the Russian coffers of £1 billion a day. Nicely matched by the $30bn per month of oil/gas revenues from EU alone since end Feb. ( Guardian) Indeed, which is why the EU are currently attempting to expedite the deadline for ceasing to import Russian energy. In mitigation, for member countries like Italy and Germany they have to manage the transition to alternative supplies in such a way that it doesn't have catastrophic social and economic consequences for them and their citizens, but they're getting there it appears. Of course, having a member country governed by a right wing populist Putin poodle like Orban poses problems in terms of vetoes and a totally uniform approach, but the will is there. And where there is a will there is usually a way. Don't let's stab ourselves in the back all the time. The EU is marshalling a pretty decent response to the Russian invasion, both diplomatically and militarily, as well as providing extraordinary humanitarian support to Ukrainian refugees. It's a key organisation in the overall free world alliance that is opposing Putin. They are our friends and allies after all. Not enemy states to be derided and belittled all the time. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on May 12, 2022 9:06:38 GMT
Partygate isn't over
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 9:18:13 GMT
Nicely matched by the $30bn per month of oil/gas revenues from EU alone since end Feb. ( Guardian) Indeed, which is why the EU are currently attempting to expedite the deadline for ceasing to import Russian energy. In mitigation, for member countries like Italy and Germany they have to manage the transition to alternative supplies in such a way that it doesn't have catastrophic social and economic consequences for them and their citizens, but they're getting there it appears. Of course, having a member country governed by a right wing populist Putin poodle like Orban poses problems in terms of vetoes and a totally uniform approach, but the will is there. And where there is a will there is usually a way. Don't let's stab ourselves in the back all the time. The EU is marshalling a pretty decent response to the Russian invasion, both diplomatically and militarily, as well as providing extraordinary humanitarian support to Ukrainian refugees. It's a key organisation in the overall free world alliance that is opposing Putin. They are our friends and allies after all. Not enemy states to be derided and belittled all the time. I wasn't belittling anyone. I merely balanced your statement about the cost to Russia of their invasion, with some numbers about the funds Putin has to pay for it. I hope the EU can find a way of getting Hungary to agree the oil ban-looks like they will offer to pay them compensation-but Hungary haven't agreed yet. On Gas-yes it is a massive problem because Putin's stategic thinking and planning took advantage of Germany's flawed "“Wandel durch Handel,” policy and their economic priorities. Meanwhile Putin cashes in on his long term planning. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 12, 2022 9:26:37 GMT
UK economy contracted by 0.1% in March and the February GDP figure was revised downwards from 0.1% growth to 0%.
The first quarter figure of +0.8% is reasonable amongst G7 economies but what appears to be a downward trajectory woll be deeply worrying for the Tories.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 12, 2022 9:27:27 GMT
colin - I don't disagree with any of what you say. I'm very doubtful about the possibility of a full E/W land bridge, especially given the huge losses Russia have suffered in their naval capacity. But yes, I think the areas of concern are that Putin is not acting rationally, that he believes Ukraine to be a part of Russia, and as someone upthread suggested, what happens if he declares Kherson to be Russian. Would continue liberation efforts by Ukraine then be seen as threatening Russia and thereby triggering their nuclear protocols? I also agree about the long term global economic situation. Putin will seek to use this to create discontent, not just in the west, but everywhere, and that instability is an issue. But still, each day, Russia gets weaker, so it's an almighty gamble for Putin.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 12, 2022 9:40:08 GMT
James Johnson of JL Partners reports on a focus group of swing voters in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency who voted Conservative in 2019. Headlines are that none will vote Conservative in the by-election, all but one will vote Lib Dem and Partygate/Johnson is a salient issue:
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on May 12, 2022 9:43:30 GMT
Hi domjg "Russia hasn't fully mobilised yet" - I keep reading this. What are they waiting for, the Ukrainians to take Rostov on Don? (joking..). Your guess is as good as mine. Most probably they want to minimise the impact/burden on the Russian people, or feel the Russian public is not ready for it. They may have calculated they can win a war off attrition without having to push the button on full mobilisation. Surely mobilising and moving from 'special operation' to 'war' after nearly 3 months, when it was cast to the Russian population as a quick fix, will actually be admitting that the operation has failed/gone badly. So for Putin it's best to try and keep up the pretence. And I suggest you watch the Youtube video with regard to the speed and actual usefulness of Russian mobilisation. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 12, 2022 9:47:12 GMT
Longer term the question we should be asking is that will this end if Putin is removed from the equation? Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook or is this being driven by the agency of one individual? the answer to this should help define what is the West's strategy and objective in regards to Russia - if we are not clear on this our ability to engage and participate in a longer conflict (however it may look) will be limited as ultimately proved in Afghanistan.
That last para. LLL Rather obtuse. You are Laura Kuenssberg and I claim my free Brillo pad.
The west's strategy looks very disjointed, reactive and most commentary is along the lines of 'Russia/Putin' bad 'Ukraine/Zelensky' good. The West's long term goals are not clear and we run the risk of making the same mistakes we made at the start of the century. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 12, 2022 9:57:38 GMT
colin - I don't disagree with any of what you say. I'm very doubtful about the possibility of a full E/W land bridge, especially given the huge losses Russia have suffered in their naval capacity. But yes, I think the areas of concern are that Putin is not acting rationally, that he believes Ukraine to be a part of Russia, and as someone upthread suggested, what happens if he declares Kherson to be Russian. Would continue liberation efforts by Ukraine then be seen as threatening Russia and thereby triggering their nuclear protocols? I also agree about the long term global economic situation. Putin will seek to use this to create discontent, not just in the west, but everywhere, and that instability is an issue. But still, each day, Russia gets weaker, so it's an almighty gamble for Putin. That was me i think. Yes I think Putin will claim that the area from the Dnieper at Kherson with a buffer above the M14 along to Melitopol and Mariupol the M14 as well as Donetsk and Luhansk with some territorial gains around the latter two cities becoming formally part of russia is a 'great victory'and has shown the West not to encroach on russia's sphere of influence. Then dig in. Will the West have the stomach for a long haul financially and in terms on the stresses of keeping a democratic alliance together to reclaim these territories on behalf of Ukraine? Its a gamble for him but what does he have to lose - if he retreats he will almost certainly be deposed and suffer the consequences. We shouldn't forget the importance of the Dnieper - I wrote a long essay at Edinburgh University 40 odd years ago on the scandinavian expansion and in particular the settlement of the Rus (men from the North ie vikings) along the middle Dnieper - they used the river to get all the way to the mediterranean and attack Constantinople, demanding vast tribute, to the shock of the Holy roman emperor. To stop the Rus the HRE used Greek Fire to burn their ships and show them he wouldn't be messed with. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 12, 2022 10:08:45 GMT
That last para. LLL Rather obtuse. You are Laura Kuenssberg and I claim my free Brillo pad.
The west's strategy looks very disjointed, reactive and most commentary is along the lines of 'Russia/Putin' bad 'Ukraine/Zelensky' good. The West's long term goals are not clear and we run the risk of making the same mistakes we made at the start of the century. 'Russia/Putin' bad 'Ukraine/Zelensky' good' - Sometimes things are that simple. If you see a guy being randomly attacked in the street you don't enquire as to his moral standing before helping him and you don't equivocate regarding the motives of his attacker. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 10:13:07 GMT
Longer term the question we should be asking is that will this end if Putin is removed from the equation? Is there more of a structural element to this conflict, relating to aspects of the Russian state, history, culture, politics, public opinion and outlook ?
A great question. You are absolutely right imo that we need to divine the correct answer. I'm afraid that I detect signs that the answers -respectively-are No & Yes |
|
