Jump to content
nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

Recommended Posts

BBC reporting large numbers of Russian men fleeing the country to avoid military call-up.

The harsh reality is the new recruits need to be specifically targeted now by Ukraine.

We now enter a very dangerous phase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2022 at 12:35, Yellow Fever said:

The sad fact is Ukraine is the only country that has given up it's nukes!

I did wonder if we should give them ten back 😉

Nobody can cave into nuclear blackmail - else all it tells EVERY country is that they must have their own ultimate deterrent as the current nuclear powers can't be trusted to come to their aid in extremis. Japan will be first. It's actually why the UK (and France) has its own independent deterrent - doubts that the Yanks in extremis would defend us.

Simply Ukraine has to carry on the fight and if yes Putin does as I frankly expect 'demonstrate' some low yield device in some largely isolated part of the world (Balmoral) then they'll have to be a measured cool headed response no knee jerk reaction. Like all bullies, he will keep on doing what he's doing until somebody metaphorically punches him on the nose.

The nuclear deterrent works on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction and both sides know that. So we have to react in equal measures if Russia attacks us. They lob one over to Balmoral (or Sandringham!) then we react in kind and lob one back into a suitably underpopulated area. They target London, we destroy Moscow. It can't be anything other than this and we have to make it clear to the Russians that we are prepared to do to them whatever they do to us, whatever the consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2022 at 15:43, Indy said:

Indeed, but unfortunately another tactical move by the madman which will cause more problems. As I said it’s a move to then quantify any attack on these regions as an aggressive attack on Russia. As my point!

Yes, however he also told us that any attack on Crimea would be regarded as an attack on Russia. When the Ukrainians bombed airbases on the peninsula, he had literally no response.

As to the tactical nuclear threat. It's actually more fraught with risk for Putin than we might imagine. He essentially needs to pick a target that his troops will not be attempting to advance through later, where any fall out can't blow back into Russia and is either militarily or economically significant. 

The only places that fulfil all those requirements are major Ukrainian cities acting as major logistics hubs. In which case the difference between a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic one because null and void (if it ever existed anyway). 

As for the response. Putin launches a nuke and Russia is a pariah. States like India and China are already unhappy about these referenda. China has long maintained a position of territorial integrity being sacrosanct and no first use. 

It's also domestically difficult to justify, Russian TV still paints the Ukrainians as being their brothers held captive by a Nazi propaganda régime. Nuking them would once again cause serious issues regarding the legitimacy of Russian actions.

Edited by 1902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For nuclear weapons to become a genuine option for Putin it would be an admission that his war has gone catastrophically wrong. We would then have to assume that people in positions of power in Russia (in the military and government) would be willing to join Putin in risking precipitating a nuclear conflict that could threaten the lives of millions of Russian people, and the obliteration of major Russian cities. All in the cause of stealing relatively small pockets of land from their "brothers and sisters" in Ukraine. Even Russia's closest "allies" have absolutely no interest in seeing anything like this happening. The prosperity of China and India, for example, depends fundamentally upon exporting to Western markets. Whilst we should take the Russian threat to use nuclear weapons seriously, I strongly suspect this is nothing more than sabre rattling from a man who knows his military and political gamble has failed miserably. I'm more inclined to think that Putin's future will resemble that of Hitler's as it is so brilliantly depicted in the film Downfall. His levels of hysteria will reach maximum but are likely achieve nothing more than abandonment from those not inclined to prostrate themselves before a madman set on a path with suicidal consequences. Ordinary Russian men are already demonstrating such abandonment by fleeing conscription in their thousands. I can't imagine Russian generals are particularly optimistic at the prospect of being expected to win a war with an influx of ill-trained, unmotivated cannon fodder. 

It is absolutely essential that the West remains resolute in its support for the Ukrainian cause in order for this to happen. The evidence so far (especially given Biden's speech to the UN) is that they will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, horsefly said:

 

It is absolutely essential that the West remains resolute in its support for the Ukrainian cause in order for this to happen. The evidence so far (especially given Biden's speech to the UN) is that they will.

👍

It will be costly for us but the alternative is even more costly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The nuclear deterrent works on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction and both sides know that. So we have to react in equal measures if Russia attacks us. They lob one over to Balmoral (or Sandringham!) then we react in kind and lob one back into a suitably underpopulated area. They target London, we destroy Moscow. It can't be anything other than this and we have to make it clear to the Russians that we are prepared to do to them whatever they do to us, whatever the consequences. 

No. What we need are rational options else we might as well (and I'm sure being considered) just launch a full on full 'first strike ' in response to what most would regard as a pin-**** tantrum by a mad bully. A tactical nuclear weapon does cross the line but the smallest is no bigger than the largest conventional bomb - hence if such small nuke was used/demonstrated as a show of willing our first response would be non nuclear - but the destruction of say the port of Sevastopol but by conventional means. We can always blow the world up later. I would rather suspect that back channels are already relaying such messages.  

Far more effective than a knee jerk reaction and gives more time for deescalation and sensible heads to prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

No. What we need are rational options else we might as well (and I'm sure being considered) just launch a full on full 'first strike ' in response to what most would regard as a pin-**** tantrum by a mad bully. A tactical nuclear weapon does cross the line but the smallest is no bigger than the largest conventional bomb - hence if such small nuke was used/demonstrated as a show of willing our first response would be non nuclear - but the destruction of say the port of Sevastopol but by conventional means. We can always blow the world up later. I would rather suspect that back channels are already relaying such messages.  

Far more effective than a knee jerk reaction and gives more time for deescalation and sensible heads to prevail.

You’ve just made a great case then killed it by saying Sensible Heads! Putin, Biden & Truss! Good god that’s scary!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

No. What we need are rational options else we might as well (and I'm sure being considered) just launch a full on full 'first strike ' in response to what most would regard as a pin-**** tantrum by a mad bully. A tactical nuclear weapon does cross the line but the smallest is no bigger than the largest conventional bomb - hence if such small nuke was used/demonstrated as a show of willing our first response would be non nuclear - but the destruction of say the port of Sevastopol but by conventional means. We can always blow the world up later. I would rather suspect that back channels are already relaying such messages.  

Far more effective than a knee jerk reaction and gives more time for deescalation and sensible heads to prevail.

I think your scenario is the more likely outcome tbh. Though I recommend spending five minutes listening to the Morgan/Peterson Youtube video where Peterson concludes that Putin cannot lose the war (assuming there is no coup against him). Putin could use battlefield nuclear weapons and basically wipe out the Ukraine nation and presenting it as a win to the Russian people as he as prevented Ukraine from falling into the hands of the West. He can also turn off the oil and gas taps in the middle of winter with no notice and drive up energy prices to a level that normal people cannot afford, and bring the world economies down. Or he brings Ukraine to the negotiating table and gets the parts of the country that he wants while making life difficult for the parts that remain.

Against Putin, there is the West, consisting of the EU that delivers fine words but few weapons; the US which has a military/industrial complex having lost a customer in Afghanistan, finds a new customer in Ukraine and is happy to see the Russians tied up in a war of their own making, plus the UK, who can take the moral high ground but offer very little practical help in return.

Against Putin in his own country there could be growing dissent from within the military as they suffer heavy losses, increased chances of a coup from oligarchs if their wealth-producing enterprises are threatened, or the people if large number of conscripts get slaughtered. All these factors make the use of tactical nuclear weapons to speed up the destruction of Ukraine a tantalising option for Putin.

Edited by Rock The Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Against Putin, there is the West, consisting of the EU that delivers fine words but few weapons; the US which has a military/industrial complex having lost a customer in Afghanistan, finds a new customer in Ukraine and is happy to see the Russians tied up in a war of their own making, plus the UK, who can take the moral high ground but offer very little practical help in return.

What utter disgraceful tripe. The US has DONATED multiple billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Equally the UK has donated vast quantities of weapons and provided crucial training cost free. The claim that the US and UK are only involved for their own benefit is entirely without foundation. This war is entirely unwanted by the Western powers and has proved massively costly to all of them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case any of you doubters thought the referendums would be rigged, the initial set of results are in:

▪️ Donetsk - 99.23%

▪️ Lugansk - 98.42%

▪️ Zaporozhye - 93.11%

 

Edited by kirku
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Putin's chief propagandist got call up papers.... I didn't go down well 🙂

From Sunday calling for recruiters to be shot, to today publicly being called a coward ... 

 

yes, it's parody. But probably not so far from the actual truth. 

 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't even be bothered to hide the soldiers staring over the voters. 

Though I think Zaporizhzhia is my personal favourite fake referendum result, as I'm sure the Kremlin will claim they now have a legitimate claim to the whole oblast. Despite the actual capital and over half the population not being under their control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2022 at 13:35, Yellow Fever said:

The sad fact is Ukraine is the only country that has given up it's nukes!

I did wonder if we should give them ten back 😉

Nobody can cave into nuclear blackmail - else all it tells EVERY country is that they must have their own ultimate deterrent as the current nuclear powers can't be trusted to come to their aid in extremis. Japan will be first. It's actually why the UK (and France) has its own independent deterrent - doubts that the Yanks in extremis would defend us.

Simply Ukraine has to carry on the fight and if yes Putin does as I frankly expect 'demonstrate' some low yield device in some largely isolated part of the world (Balmoral) then they'll have to be a measured cool headed response no knee jerk reaction. Like all bullies, he will keep on doing what he's doing until somebody metaphorically punches him on the nose.

I genuinely think some tactical nukes under Ukraine's control would be the best answer. I even think you could argue it doesn't breach the Treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, given that it could be argued that Russia's actions have voided the terms under which Ukraine joined and under which the UK and US underwrote Ukraine's entry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2022 at 11:22, Yellow Fever said:

My main concern is that the UK is one of the more obvious initial targets to intimidate and dissuade the West. I was not joking when I noted Balmoral. We don't have similar low level nukes (or conventional munitions)  to respond and the USA certainly wouldn't want to escalate immediately on that. He'd have kicked the Yanks poodle. Cutting a North Sea gas inter connector is actually more likely.

I fear I'm being proved right. The action in the Baltic was simply in my view a warning he's not bluffing and what could follow. Cool heads please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who’s blown up the gas pipeline?

Can’t be the Germans EU, they desperately need the gas.

UK, can source from elsewhere.

Russians can just shut it off?

US, don’t need that gas line, but Biden did promise to close it!

It gets dirtier by the day and I don’t feel optimistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sheva said:

Who’s blown up the gas pipeline?

Can’t be the Germans EU, they desperately need the gas.

UK, can source from elsewhere.

Russians can just shut it off?

US, don’t need that gas line, but Biden did promise to close it!

It gets dirtier by the day and I don’t feel optimistic.

 

There could be an element of symbolism, hinting at burning bridges. Let's face it, if Putin was rational he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place, and what's rational about the numerous war crimes he has committed? All of his rhetoric has been talking up conflict, so why's it so hard to believe that he'd do something like this as a demonstration that they don't need to sell gas to Europe anyway, with the added bonus of giving the tin-foil hat brigade some 'false flags' to talk about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheva said:

Who’s blown up the gas pipeline?

Can’t be the Germans EU, they desperately need the gas.

UK, can source from elsewhere.

Russians can just shut it off?

US, don’t need that gas line, but Biden did promise to close it!

It gets dirtier by the day and I don’t feel optimistic.

 

LYB is right that very little of Putin's decision making conforms to standards of rationality. However, one plausible reason for thinking it is a Russian act of sabotage is the proximity of the explosions to the new Norway-Poland pipeline. What better way to demonstrate its vulnerability to Russian aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

LYB is right that very little of Putin's decision making conforms to standards of rationality. However, one plausible reason for thinking it is a Russian act of sabotage is the proximity of the explosions to the new Norway-Poland pipeline. What better way to demonstrate its vulnerability to Russian aggression.

It just a coded message to the West that he's 'all in' and not bluffing. Both lines were shut down anyway.

Easy to cut the European interconnectors if he wants to. No gas from Norway or from UK in either direction. Power from France too?

Just a subtle warning. Perfectly logical in a way.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

He's blown up his own pipelines to show he's not bluffing, perhaps someone can persuade him to blow up the Kremlin to demonstrate what he could do to the White House.

Yes it seems quite unlikely that anybody's going to start using Russian gas again in Europe short of completely new Russian regime. The existing lines are therefore largely scrap for Putin but he can (and did) use them to send a subtle message all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes it seems quite unlikely that anybody's going to start using Russian gas again in Europe short of completely new Russian regime. The existing lines are therefore largely scrap for Putin but he can (and did) use them to send a subtle message all the same.

Can't they just get a big pipe to run from the Russian end and nick it??

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herman said:

Can't they just get a big pipe to run from the Russian end and nick it??

What about getting all those people fleeing conscription to bring a bottle of gas with them. We'd soon have more than enough.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

It just a coded message to the West that he's 'all in' and not bluffing. Both lines were shut down anyway.

Easy to cut the European interconnectors if he wants to. No gas from Norway or from UK in either direction. Power from France too?

Just a subtle warning. Perfectly logical in a way.

Not sure it was very subtle, and presumely though he could easily cut a European interconnector that would unquestionably rank as an 'attack' on a NATO member and all the potential consequences that would flow from that.

Of course I'm not suggesting that NATO would nuke him or anything remotely like that but there are plenty of ways that NATO could increase the pain and pressure on Russia forces in Ukraine with additional conventional weapons.

Edited by Creative Midfielder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I wonder where China stands regarding Russia's nuclear threats. Haven't really heard much from them recently. 

The history of their relations is largely one of bitter enmity. Clearly the Chinese have taken advantage of the current opportunity to purchase discount gas, however they absolutely depend on selling to the Western world to sustain their economy. Anything that threatens that trade would hurt China severely. Thus, I'm sure they have warned Russia against such folly. Whether that would be enough to prevent the maniacal dictator from acting is a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hard to say this considering our personal loss in Ukraine, but it’s time to talk and make peace, it’s going to get much worse and spread throughout. We are just getting the first ripples of economic downturn, no human losses.

From my experience over many years living and working in Eastern Ukraine, a first investor, I can honestly say that the US and its backers have played a major part in bringing about the present situation. 

Not every country needs or wants to be westernised,  understand the position of Russia, they feel threatened and have been humiliated in the past. This is not about the good guys v the bad. The media can portray events to suite their agenda.


Something much bigger is playing out worldwide, if you haven’t figured that out by now! Ukraine is being used to attack Russia by the globalists of the west, Putin has to be defeated, his Russia is a major obstacle. All things are linked.

We were aware of this 25 years ago, from the first brick thrown in Maiden, the situation has been orchestrated within Ukraine from the globalists of the west. 
 

All I can say is, start looking at the much bigger picture. Putin isn’t the madman, yes he miscalculated the resistance of Ukraine or the backing of the west but Russia is all in and others will start to line up behind them, have already.
Ukraine isn’t lead by a superhuman president, far from it and the US by a man who is ready for a care home.. just keep him away!

Make of the above what you like, I have no agenda, I have several Russian friends, family in Ukraine, Uk and US., it’s just way past time to be playing any games, this is on a knife edge .

Whatever little discomforts we experience this winter, just remember that it’s a drop in the ocean of what the Ukrainians and some Russians have to endure, ….who really caused this?

 


 

 

 

Edited by Sheva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sheva said:

Whatever little discomforts we experience this winter, just remember that it’s a drop in the ocean of what the Ukrainians and some Russians have to endure, ….who really caused this?

Putin

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...