So is Putin going to invade Ukraine anytime soon or..?

[kirku 1,332]

3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Well, let's hope that those mainly unattributed quotes are true. If they are, how then do they gel with your assertion that Putin has expansionist tendencies beyond Ukraine?

 

1) Have you got anything to back up any of your opinions?

2) Putin's goals were predicated on a quick victory in Ukraine. If Ukrainian defence, and western arms and sanctions, have altered that calculus then that can be seen as a positive thing as it lessens the chances of a wider conflict. The Russian military has been degraded and its effectiveness exposed as weaker than many analysts predicted prior to the war. This again contradicts the logical conclusions of your appeasement strategy, wherein Putin is emboldened and the Russian military unscathed. However, it is extremely unlikely that Russia will climb down significantly or withdraw - it simply is not a viable position politically or culturally.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

This man really understands the geo-political implications of what is actually happening and why its happening now.

 

 

Haven't listened to it all but some interesting global long term insights albeit with a US 'spin'. Truth is of course the world economic order is rapidly changing and Russia is an economic midget with Putin desperately trying to cling too and recreate the nostalgia of Russian greatness and Empire and still being a player. In truth Russia belongs now in the European club same as many other old once imperial but now midget countries that realize individually they're small beer as compared to China, longer term India and other economic blocks.

I actually wonder when all the dust has settled and a rebuilt Ukraine emerges from the haze as to if it will become a new economic power house as post war Germany became. Something positive to hope for.

[kirku 1,332]

48 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Hardly inside information, you just Googled all that. My own Googling might be more informed than 'western sources,' though:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/advanced-military-technology-russia

However,  let's hope that those mainly unattributed quotes of yours are true. If they are, how then do they gel with your assertion that Putin has expansionist tendencies beyond Ukraine, or indeed with a previous opinion that his stated intention to back off Kyiv is a tactic employed in order to enable him to re-group and re-arm.

 

Oh look, you drastically changed your post after I'd replied. How interesting.

"Hardly inside information, you just Googled all that" - I hate to break it to you, but I am, in fact, not James Bond. And, if I were, I wouldn't be posting classified information on a football forum.

Firstly, Chatham House is a "western source", so pretty hilarious to conclude that a Research Paper written 6 months ago "might be more informed" than defence officials commenting on the actual war. But this is a clear pattern of yours.

Whether it's deliberate or due to a lack of critical thinking, I'm not sure.

[Indy 3,283]

It’s amazing so many people with such views as we get 24 hour media coverage…..yet the past 70 years of Israel incursions and land grabbing not to mention the displaced Palestinians have been seen by many international organisations as crimes yet no one on here even batters an eyelid! Just wonder how much 24 hour coverage of civilians being killed in Ukraine but little coverage about Israel crimes influences some people! Propaganda isn’t just a Russia tool!

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

It’s amazing so many people with such views as we get 24 hour media coverage…..yet the past 70 years of Israel incursions and land grabbing not to mention the displaced Palestinians have been seen by many international organisations as crimes yet no one on here even batters an eyelid! Just wonder how much 24 hour coverage of civilians being killed in Ukraine but little coverage about Israel crimes influences some people! Propaganda isn’t just a Russia tool!

I'm not sure there. There has been plenty of footage re. the Palestinians and some aims at pushing back by boycotting Israeli-made products, or products made from stolen land.

I think the question there is who they support. If they side with Palestine and Ukraine then at least they are being consistent. Not to mention, if we are to be critical of people for being quiet in earlier cases of oppression, then sooner or later they're going to have to find their voices in one case. That will always look incongruous, but doesn't lessen the merit of the argument.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Haven't listened to it all but some interesting global long term insights albeit with a US 'spin'. Truth is of course the world economic order is rapidly changing and Russia is an economic midget with Putin desperately trying to cling too and recreate the nostalgia of Russian greatness and Empire and still being a player. In truth Russia belongs now in the European club same as many other old once imperial but now midget countries that realize individually they're small beer as compared to China, longer term India and other economic blocks.

I actually wonder when all the dust has settled and a rebuilt Ukraine emerges from the haze as to if it will become a new economic power house as post war Germany became. Something positive to hope for.

I guess that applies to the UK as well. I can't remember the book I read in the 80s but its main thread was that future world powers, excluding nuclear weapons making you a power, would be ones that supplied the needs of the rest. Forget sport or culture, but what the consumer driven nations of the world required.

Who would have imagined reading that then, assuming it was correct, that China and probably the far eastern nations may well be the powers. As a youngster I knew we had imports of some kind, such as seeing an Empire Made label on items, but I don't believe there was such a reliance, bearing in mind that consumerism wasn't happening then.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

1) Have you got anything to back up any of your opinions?

2) Putin's goals were predicated on a quick victory in Ukraine. If Ukrainian defence, and western arms and sanctions, have altered that calculus then that can be seen as a positive thing as it lessens the chances of a wider conflict. The Russian military has been degraded and its effectiveness exposed as weaker than many analysts predicted prior to the war. This again contradicts the logical conclusions of your appeasement strategy, wherein Putin is emboldened and the Russian military unscathed. However, it is extremely unlikely that Russia will climb down significantly or withdraw - it simply is not a viable position politically or culturally.

1) I could have posted the same.

2) What an eminently sensible point. There's no disagreement there, except that it overlooks the possibility that early concessions (which you label appeasement* strategy) may have averted the loss of lives and the total destruction of considerable areas of urban Ukraine.

That Russia is wounded is undeniable. That Putin is still capable of destroying huge areas of Ukraine and killing thousands more is equally so, and even without the ever haunting prospect of the use of non-convential means. 

This spells out a need for concessions by Zelensky along the lines frequently mentioned above in order to give Putin sufficient victory to climb down.

* I originally used the term "appeasement," but wish I hadn't as it seems to have been interpreted as submission. Perhaps this is because it has come to be associated with Neville Chamberlain and naivety, bordering upon weakness. 

Most wars end in concessions. I'll stick to that term.  

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I guess that applies to the UK as well. I can't remember the book I read in the 80s but its main thread was that future world powers, excluding nuclear weapons making you a power, would be ones that supplied the needs of the rest. Forget sport or culture, but what the consumer driven nations of the world required.

Who would have imagined reading that then, assuming it was correct, that China and probably the far eastern nations may well be the powers. As a youngster I knew we had imports of some kind, such as seeing an Empire Made label on items, but I don't believe there was such a reliance, bearing in mind that consumerism wasn't happening then.

Yes - lessons for the UK in there too.

As to Zeihan he is of course telling the story the Yanks want to hear - the truth is of course of China for instance presently needs western markets and we need their investment. World is more integrated than ever which is why the sanctions on Russia (which as noted elsewhere China haven't tried to subvert or work around) are extremely effective.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

10 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

1) I could have posted the same.

2) What an eminently sensible point. There's no disagreement there, except that it overlooks the possibility that early concessions (which you label appeasement* strategy) may have everted the loss of lives and the total destruction of considerable areas of urban Ukraine.

That Russia is wounded is undeniable. That Putin is still capable of destroying huge areas of Ukraine and killing thousands more is equally so, and even without the ever haunting prospect of the use of non-convential means. 

This spells out a need for concessions by Zelensky along the lines frequently mentioned above in order to give Putin sufficient victory to climb down.

* I originally used the term "appeasement," but wish I hadn't as it seems to have been interpreted as submission. Perhaps this is because it has come to be associated with Neville Chamberlain and naivety, bordering upon weakness. 

Most wars end in concessions. I'll stick to that term.  

 

If I ignore the tantrums I would basically agree with Kirku's central point.

The problem is we have continuously turned a blind eye to Putin's empire building for decades - we can always find a short term convenient excuse not to intervene or fudge any red lines (i.e Obama in Syria and chemical weapons) but such actions have never satisfied Putin and on and on he goes. This is where he has to fail or learn a very very hard lesson else he will be 'testing NATO's article 5 while fondling his nuclear button next. Kaliningrad looks like low hanging fruit as a try on.  

Perhaps he'd be happy with the Isle of Wight or Shetland (Sullom Voe?) as a new military base?

Sounds like Danegeld to me. 

[kirku 1,332]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/russia-ukraine-invasion-military-predictions/629418/

Interesting article here

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

21 minutes ago, kirku said:

Oh look, you drastically changed your post after I'd replied. How interesting.

"Hardly inside information, you just Googled all that" - I hate to break it to you, but I am, in fact, not James Bond. And, if I were, I wouldn't be posting classified information on a football forum.

Firstly, Chatham House is a "western source", so pretty hilarious to conclude that a Research Paper written 6 months ago "might be more informed" than defence officials commenting on the actual war. But this is a clear pattern of yours.

Whether it's deliberate or due to a lack of critical thinking, I'm not sure.

Edited before you replied.

So if it's not inside information, and you are not James Bond, then your views on Russian re-armament capabilities are based upon just views you had previously absorbed but needed to resort to a search engine in order to back up?

It might suit you, to dismiss the Chatham House article, but that doesn't lessen its content. Tells me a lot within the context of this discussion. If Putin has access to such weapons, whether six months ago or six days ago, then he can use them.

The general view is mounting that Putin is already defeated. That his campaign has been a disaster for him on many levels cannot be refuted. If he is capable of upgrading his weaponry to the super missiles mentioned in the Chatham House article, then we have to hope something is resolved around the table before even more carnage and loss of life.

 

 

[kirku 1,332]

22 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

1) Edited before you replied.

2) So if it's not inside information, and you are not James Bond, then your views on Russian re-armament capabilities are based upon just views you had previously absorbed but needed to resort to a search engine in order to back up?

3) It might suit you, to dismiss the Chatham House article, but that doesn't lessen its content. Tells me a lot within the context of this discussion. If Putin has access to such weapons, whether six months ago or six days ago, then he can use them.

4) The general view is mounting that Putin is already defeated. That his campaign has been a disaster for him on many levels cannot be refuted. If he is capable of upgrading his weaponry to the super missiles mentioned in the Chatham House article, then we have to hope something is resolved around the table before even more carnage and loss of life.

 

 

1) Impossible - as you can see from my first reply

2) It's objectively hilarious that you think using a search engine to find sources is some kind of debating slam dunk. If only you could provide sources for some of the bizarre stuff you've said recently.

3) It doesn't "suit me" - it's just irrelevant in the face of what we're seeing the Russian military actually do, rather than what it was theorised that it may do. See the article in my recent post if you want to learn about it.

4) "If he is capable of upgrading his weaponry to the super missiles" I'm not even sure where to begin with this...

[ricardo 7,345]

Putin has just authorised the drafting of another 135k into the military. Anyone still thinking he's not going all in?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Putin has just authorised the drafting of another 135k into the military. Anyone still thinking he's not going all in?

He has also said that anything purchased from Russia, obviously gas, will have to be paid for with rubles. In other words, the markets are going to have to buy rubles. 

[kirku 1,332]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Putin has just authorised the drafting of another 135k into the military. Anyone still thinking he's not going all in?

Fairly sure that's just annual conscription that occurs every spring, but I might well be wrong

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

10 minutes ago, kirku said:

1) Impossible - as you can see from my first reply

2) It's objectively hilarious that you think using a search engine to find sources is some kind of debating slam dunk. If only you could provide sources for some of the bizarre stuff you've said recently.

3) It doesn't "suit me" - it's just irrelevant in the face of what we're seeing the Russian military actually do, rather than what it was theorised that it may do. See the article in my recent post if you want to learn about it.

4) "If he is capable of upgrading his weaponry to the super missiles" I'm not even sure where to begin with this...

(1) Edited before I read/opened your reply. Not impossible.

(2) Depends upon the source. Yours was thin, to say the least. 

(3) The content of the Chatham House report wasn't based upon theory. 

(4) Durr! "Upgrading his weaponry" = Deciding to employ super missiles.

You may wish to continually decry the military capabilities of Russia based upon the current disastrous campaign and the shortcomings of planning and equipment exposed during this, but the fact remain that Russia is still a "SuperPower with capabilities for destruction virtually unequalled and sufficiently recognised by the West so as to cause their current stand-off with regard to the Ukraine war.

I am also unable to marry your initial assertion that Putin has expansionist intentions  up to and beyond the Baltic with your current view that his country is so militarily inept.

[kirku 1,332]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

He has also said that anything purchased from Russia, obviously gas, will have to be paid for with rubles. In other words, the markets are going to have to buy rubles. 

I don't know why he thinks the answer will be any different from the last time (about a week ago) he made the same demands

[kirku 1,332]

21 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

(1) Edited before I read/opened your reply. Not impossible.

(2) Depends upon the source. Yours was thin, to say the least. 

(3) The content of the Chatham House report wasn't based upon theory. 

(4) Durr! "Upgrading his weaponry" = Deciding to employ super missiles.

You may wish to continually decry the military capabilities of Russia based upon the current disastrous campaign and the shortcomings of planning and equipment exposed during this, but the fact remain that Russia is still a "SuperPower with capabilities for destruction virtually unequalled and sufficiently recognised by the West so as to cause their current stand-off with regard to the Ukraine war.

5) I am also unable to marry your initial assertion that Putin has expansionist intentions  up to and beyond the Baltic with your current view that his country is so militarily inept.

1) "edited before you replied" and "edited before I read/opened your reply" are two entirely different statements. Which should be fairly apparent to anyone with a reading age of over 7.

2-3) You have provided precisely one source, not even anecdotal evidence, to support anything in this exchange. And it was a research paper (thus, theorised) on potential Russian military capability. 

4) I don't think you yet understand how funny I find your assertion of "Russian super missiles" to be. It's such a childish level of commentary.

5) I've already answered this very clearly. Putin's intentions outstripped his military capabilities - which was as overestimated by western analysts as it was Russian generals and the yes men that Putin surrounded himself with.

Edited March 31, 2022 by kirku

[ricardo 7,345]

I am expecting another more general offensive soon. Putin really has no option other than to take all of Ukraine or his forces will wither on the vine. Ukraine is likely to become Grozny writ large.

Western governments must give Ukraine whatever it needs.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

27 minutes ago, kirku said:

1) "edited before you replied" and "edited before I read/opened your reply" are two entirely different statements. Which should be fairly apparent to anyone with a reading age of over 7.

2-3) You have provided precisely one source, not even anecdotal evidence, to support anything in this exchange. And it was a research paper (thus, theorised) on potential Russian military capability. 

4) I don't think you yet understand how funny I find your assertion of "Russian super missiles" to be. It's such a childish level of commentary.

5) I've already answered this very clearly. Putin's intentions outstripped his militaries capabilities - which was as overestimated by western analysts as it was Russian generals and the yes men that Putin surrounded himself with.

What's the point.

I just hope that the West never dismiss the military capabilities of Russia the way you do. It could prove to be dangerous.

(1) Petty.

(2) The Chatham House article was not theoretical. Research or not.

 (3) "Childish level of commentary." Meaningless, and just abuse for abuse's sake.

(4) We'll see.

I just find the need you have to make continuous abusive personal remarks amusing, even though you have a thing or two to learn. Which reading test are you familiar with, by the way? Young's? Stanford-Binet?   

Does having your extreme views challenged make you insecure? 

Edited March 31, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[kirku 1,332]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

What's the point.

I just hope that the West never dismiss the military the capabilities of Russia the way you do. It could prove to be dangerous.

(1) Petty.

(2) The Chatham House article was not theoretical. Research or not.

 (3) "Childish level of commentary." Meaningless, and just abuse for abuse's sake.

(4) We'll see.

I just find the need you have to make continuous abusive personal remarks amusing, even though you have a thing or two to learn. Which reading test are you familiar with, by the way? Young's? Stanford-Binet?   

Does having your extreme views challenged make you insecure? 

It's just endless drivel from you and it's all really rather pathetic.

The examples you use to support your points are either entirely irrelevant or fabricated. When called out on it you claim to mean something else entirely (this has happened multiple times).

Then when you do provide a source, of which there has only been one, you don't even understand what it means.

Lastly, you continually create ridiculous strawmen and assert them as true. For example, categorising my posts as "dismissing the capabilities of Russia" or my views being "extreme".

The only thing "extreme" here is your level of idiocy. 

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

It's just endless drivel from you and it's all really rather pathetic.

The examples you use to support your points are either entirely irrelevant or fabricated. When called out on it you claim to mean something else entirely (this has happened multiple times).

Then when you do provide a source, of which there has only been one, you don't even understand what it means.

Lastly, you continually create ridiculous strawmen and assert them as true. For example, categorising my posts as "dismissing the capabilities of Russia" or my views being "extreme".

The only thing "extreme" here is your level of idiocy. 

That's just an unimpressive outburst of meaningless and contrived generalisations,  laced with abuse.  

Like I said, what's the point?

Risible.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

22 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I am expecting another more general offensive soon. Putin really has no option other than to take all of Ukraine or his forces will wither on the vine. Ukraine is likely to become Grozny writ large.

Western governments must give Ukraine whatever it needs.

Cant argue with that. Stand off anti-tank/mechanized weapons please.

If we want to stop this war Putin needs a major visible defeat (even in Russia) of his forces on at least one axis.

[Indy 3,283]

11 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

Indeed some view opinions and hopes others turn into General Cheeseburger! Fountain of all knowledge what Putin is going to do and full knowledge of Russian army capabilities! I’m lost to why their not advising Boris!

 

[Mr Apples 1,317]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

Fountain of all knowledge what Putin is going to do and full knowledge of Russian army capabilities! I’m lost to why their not advising Boris!

If only they were 60 years younger...they'd show that Pewtun. 🤣

Apples

[horsefly 4,287]

8 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Frantic or what?

You seem to be getting a bit strung up, so much so that you seem unable to employ any level of comprehension that makes sense. 

I never said Johnson used the word "waffle." Read it again, more slowly this time. Try to keep your wits about you, for once.

 

Oh dear! Yet more of your lies. I said it was YOU that used the word "waffle" to describe protests about Russia's illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Here again are your EXACT words: " "" Waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country.". I then said, " I very much doubt that even Johnson would be so stupid as to use the expression "Waffle" when referring to the Russian invasion". You really are extraordinarily thick if you can't understand such simple English sentences.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

40 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

 

I think many of them were expert virologists beforehand. And some of the Americans were constitutional law experts. 😉
 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

 

Germany tomorrow evening