Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[ricardo 7,396]

Free the Leopards

https://mobile.twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1616495969578766336

[Barbe bleu 832]

18 hours ago, ricardo said:

Free the Leopards

https://mobile.twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1616495969578766336

Should we say  'le-puds' or pronounce every letter and get 'Leo-pards'.

What does the house germanophile gunnshow reckon?

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

28 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Should we say  'le-puds' or pronounce every letter and get 'Leo-pards'.

What does the house germanophile gunnshow reckon?

In German you pronounce the o, so "leh-o-pard".

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

Did I read somewhere that the Ukrainians are already being or about to be trained on them anyway in Poland. If so then no time lost as Germany edges towards the inevitable decision.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

"So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.

I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.

Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.

The sane and decent policy for any outside power is to help push them into a lasting compromise, as the world did to France and Germany after 1945. Instead, we send tanks. It is as if the fire brigade went about starting fires."

Entitled: "Sending Ukraine our tanks could turn Europe into one big radioactive graveyard." 

No doubt many of you have read today's article in the DailyMail and I realise that most of you don't agree with it. Although obnoxious, Hitchens is no fool, and his views are shared by many.

I think it is too extreme a view to be honest, although it reflects some of my concerns. It is not a matter of black and white.

I believe in the highlighted last paragraph and that anything other than compromise could lead to consequences that none of us can predict.

I would appreciate views on this article, as I said, it is not a matter of black or white.

(Please note this is an opportunity for serious debate and not one for insults, demeaning or put downs of those with a different viewpoint and maybe concerns.)  

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[Mr Angry 1,570]

What Putin is doing, and did in 2014, is wrong. He needs to be stopped.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

"So it is left to me to tell you that it is an act of grave stupidity for the West to supply Ukraine with modern tanks. Unlike everyone else in the media and politics, I am not a military expert. But I know what tanks are for, and it is not defence.

What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens.

Look, Vladimir Putin is obviously a sinister tyrant and, in my view, went off his head completely during the Covid panic (look at those huge tables he sits at). I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button.

So there is the real possibility that a large chunk of Europe might be turned into a radioactive graveyard and that American conventional retaliation for this (which will be furious and powerful) will take us a stage further into the world of horror, loss, flight, pestilence and poverty which always follows war. If this happens, maybe more people might want to find out why it began. Maybe not. I will help, if asked.

But why is Britain in this affair? I know that a lot of voters in key states in America hate Russia because their forebears came from lands Moscow had oppressed. I know that some neo-conservative fanatics in Washington have long desired to dismantle Russia and ensure that it is never an important country again.

I even understand their points of view. But they are at least 3,000 miles away and will not be personally affected by their own policy. By contrast we are not 3,000 miles away. And I have absolutely no idea how Britain will become safer, happier or more prosperous thanks to following this strategy. Rather the opposite.

Two countries are in a furious grapple because their deep, hard and unalterable interests conflict.

The sane and decent policy for any outside power is to help push them into a lasting compromise, as the world did to France and Germany after 1945. Instead, we send tanks. It is as if the fire brigade went about starting fires."

Entitled: "Sending Ukraine our tanks could turn Europe into one big radioactive graveyard." 

No doubt many of you have read today's article in the DailyMail and I realise that most of you don't agree with it. Although obnoxious, Hitchens is no fool, and his views are shared by many.

I think it is too extreme a view to be honest, although it reflects some of my concerns. It is not a matter of black and white.

I believe in the highlighted last paragraph and that anything other than compromise could lead to consequences that none of us can predict.

I would appreciate views on this article, as I said, it is not a matter of black or white.

(Please note this is an opportunity for serious debate and not one for insults, demeaning or put downs of those with a different viewpoint and maybe concerns.)  

What a pile of tripe. The very first line you quote is such obvious rubbish that it doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. The only thing it gets right is that he is not a military expert. You predicted Ukraine would be overrun within days from the very beginning of the war, and you were proved wrong.  And now you try to push the same call for Ukrainian surrender by making up utter nonsense that they might want tanks in order to "take part in a victory parade in Red Square". Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours. You should be ashamed to find yourself pumping out Putin's propaganda. The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets. There are many fingers required to push the red button, and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory. Frankly, I think I trust the common opinion of all the strategists advising the Western coalition, rather than your hyperbolic prediction of nuclear Armageddon.

Edited January 22, 2023 by horsefly

[benchwarmer 625]

Two points:

1) It's being said that Germany's reluctance to send tanks is to do with history.  It is, but not because they're ashamed of their Nazi past imo. They're haunted by the battle of Kursk on the eastern front in July 1943, the largest tank battle in history.  Germany was defeated by Russia and it proved to be the beginning of the end of WW11.  That's why less than 50% of the German electorate support it, compared to 90%+ elsewhere. 

2) Despite pleas by Ukraine that it needs Leopards to defend itself, it's pretty obvious that it will use them to go on the offensive and regain as much lost territory as it can, including Crimea (a pawn handed over to Ukraine in a treaty in 1954), so the conflict is bound to escalate.  In contrast, the UK and US tanks are more suited to defence than attack.

Edited January 22, 2023 by benchwarmer

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

What a pile of tripe. The very first line you quote is such obvious rubbish that it doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. The only thing it gets right is that he is not a military expert. You predicted Ukraine would be overrun within days from the very beginning of the war, and you were proved wrong.  And now you try to push the same call for Ukrainian surrender by making up utter nonsense that they might want tanks in order to "take part in a victory parade in Red Square". Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours. You should be ashamed to find yourself pumping out Putin's propaganda. The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets. There are many fingers required to push the red button, and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory. Frankly, I think I trust the common opinion of all the strategists advising the Western coalition, rather than your hyperbolic prediction of nuclear Armageddon.

Firstly, I quoted Peter Hitchens. I did not say I agreed with him, but that it reflected some of my concerns. It also reflects the concerns of many others. 

Where on earth is my "hyperbolic prediction of nuclear Armageddon." Answer: nowhere.

Secondly, your black and white interpretation of the whole affair fails to reflect that you cannot possibly know just what goes on in Putin's mind or the Russian psyche in general and their fears (either realistic or not) over the  Westernisation of countries on their borders. How could you possibly be certain that there are "many fingers required to push the red button?" Have you been to Putin's Russia. You seem to know an awful lot about Russians after all.

( For information, I have, as I went to Rostov on Don (from Turkey) some years ago and got a serious taste of just how extreme (some) Russians feel about the Ukraine issue in a bar I visited.)  

Thirdly, it was not 'a pile of tripe'as you so crudely put it, it is a matter for serious debate for reasons I have just mentioned in my second point.

I realise that, in your head, you are never wrong (about anything. )  I have long since come to the conclusion that you are not capable of serious debate, just extremist hyperbole that reflect your own views. In doing so, your tactic is to intentionally distort the statements of those who do not share your concerns. For example: I did not "pump" out Putin's propaganda, I merely expressed concerns about his state of mind and agreed with Hitchens that nobody could possibly predict the consequences of this war escalating. Obviously you, alone, can. 

For example: You got so worked up you ended up accusing me (intentionally or not) of stating things that Hitchens had said.

I knew that you would jump in first with your one-sided extremism. I would have preferred more sensible posters who can see the whole picture more clearly than a "know all" like you to have replied.

See, we can all deliver insults and put downs, but that's not debate. Read my final paragraph again.

Serious debate:

Hitchens: " I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. "

Do you agree with this or not?  I'm not sure but if you don't state why.

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,310]

23 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Secondly, your black and white interpretation of the whole affair fails to reflect that you cannot possibly know just what goes on in Putin's mind or the Russian psyche in general and their fears (either realistic or not) over the  Westernisation of countries on their borders. How could you possibly be certain that there are "many fingers required to push the red button?" Have you been to Putin's Russia. You seem to know an awful lot about Russians after all.

Indeed I don't have personal knowledge, which is precisely why I rely on the views of actual genuine experts, people like Fiona Hill, a famed Russian expert who gave a recent Reith lecture for which I provided a link not long ago (try listening to it if you genuinely want to hear an informed view of what is happening inside Russia, rather than the views of a self-serving controversy monger like Hitchins). Or try Anne Applebaum etc, etc. 

If you truly believe that there is literally a red button that Putin alone could push to launch a nuclear war then you truly don't deserve to be taken seriously. It is also self-evident from the willingness of all the Ukrainian allies to supply them with hugely more armaments of increasing power and effectiveness that the advice they are receiving from their experts is that the threat of nuclear war is simply the bluff of a failing dictator.

23 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Where on earth is my "hyperbolic prediction of nuclear Armageddon." Answer: nowhere.

"I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button." Your posted words, not mine.

23 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

For example: I did not "pump" out Putin's propaganda,

"What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Your words not mine. Also the very same claims spouted out by Putin's regime on a regular basis as justification for his invasion.

Try following the conventions of quotation if you want to disentangle yourself from having to take responsibility for posting such  views.

Edited January 22, 2023 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed I don't have personal knowledge, which is precisely why I rely on the views of actual genuine experts, people like Fiona Hill, a famed Russian expert who gave a recent Reith lecture for which I provided a link not long ago (try listening to it if you genuinely want to hear an informed view of what is happening inside Russia, rather than the views of a self-serving controversy monger like Hitchins). Or try Anne Applebaum etc, etc. 

If you truly believe that there is literally a red button that Putin alone could push to launch a nuclear war then you truly don't deserve to be taken seriously. It is also self-evident from the willingness of all the Ukrainian allies to supply them with hugely more armaments of increasing power and effectiveness that the advice they are receiving from their experts is that the threat of nuclear war is simply the bluff of a failing dictator.

"I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button." Your words, not mine.

"What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Your words not mine. Also the very same claims spouted out by Putin's regime on a regular basis as justification for his invasion.

Eh? They were Hitchen's words not mine. I did not say I agreed with them. In fact, I said that they were too extreme for me. I merely said I shared some of his concerns.

"Nobody can possibly predict the outcome of this war escalating." Hitchens.

Not even Fiona Hill: me. 

Do you agree or not?

Advice: Try not to get carried away in your own self-importance. Try reading posts more carefully. Answer questions put to you.

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

Eh? They were Hitchen's words not mine. I did not say I agreed with them. In fact, I said that they were too extreme for me. I merely said I shared some of his concerns.

"Nobody can possibly predict the outcome of this war escalating." Hitchens.

Do you agree or not?

Advice: Try not to get carried away in your own self-importance. Try reading posts more carefully. Answer questions put to you.

If you post the words of another and fail to follow the normal conventions of quotation then you invite the view that they represent your views (and you have certainly posted very much the same sort of views on this thread before on several occasions). 

As for: "Nobody can possibly predict the outcome of this war escalating." that's simply a silly comment. Predicting the possible courses of the war is precisely what thousands of expert strategists do on a daily basis. The idea that governments could even begin to formulate policy without such expert predictions is patently ludicrous. To conflate the fact that no predictions can be guaranteed to turn out true with the idea that nobody can "predict the outcome of the war escalating" is a childish level of analysis. So no, of course I don't agree with a ridiculous statement, the logical conclusion of which would mean that no government should ever engage in reacting to an act of aggression by another nation. 

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

14 minutes ago, horsefly said:

If you post the words of another and fail to follow the normal conventions of quotation then you invite the view that they represent your views (and you have certainly posted very much the same sort of views on this thread before on several occasions). 

As for: "Nobody can possibly predict the outcome of this war escalating." that's simply a silly comment. Predicting the possible courses of the war is precisely what thousands of expert strategists do on a daily basis. The idea that governments could even begin to formulate policy without such expert predictions is patently ludicrous. To conflate the fact that no predictions can be guaranteed to turn out true with the idea that nobody can "predict the outcome of the war escalating" is a childish level of analysis. So no, of course I don't agree with a ridiculous statement, the logical conclusion of which would mean that no government should ever engage in reacting to an act of aggression by another nation. 

That made no sense at all.

The difference between my views and the Hitchens article were quite clear. His views are clearly in quotes. Mine not. 

So how do you predict that this war will end based upon what these experts state? You called it a "silly view" and a "childish level of analysis" that nobody could predict.

We all hope that the Ukraine prevails, that Putin is overthrown and that the war (in which thousands have now perished) ends soon. Bur, we cannot predict it.

You are fond of quoting WW2 and the refusal to appease the (non-nuclear) Hitler.

When the "experts" who predict things "on a daily basis" led the government into war with Germany had they predicted we would win it. In fact the Battle of Britain was a close run thing and the war was going one way (Dunkirk) until the Americans entered it. Did they predict that? 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

That made no sense at all.

The difference between my views and the Hitchens article were quite clear. His views are clearly in quotes. Mine not. 

So how do you predict that this war will end based upon what thee experts? You called it a "silly view" that nobody could predict.

 

No surprise that you don't understand it, but not a problem for it matters not whether you or Hitchins made them, my points in response remain the same. So, how about you address the substantive points I have made instead of your standard ad hominem jibes seeking to distract from the issues.

Re "You called it a "silly view" that nobody could predict". Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

The problem I see is that Putin only ever seems to have unreasonable terms for a ceasefire. He should walk out of Donbas and Crimea and they should remain Ukrainian. After that, be relatively gentle. Even that seems too much for him - and it sets a dreadful precedent where any militarily stronger nation can agitate within a weaker neighbour, cause conflict and steal some of their terrain.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

No surprise that you don't understand it, but not a problem for it matters not whether you or Hitchins made them, my points in response remain the same. So, how about you address the substantive points I have made instead of your standard ad hominem jibes seeking to distract from the issues.

Re "You called it a "silly view" that nobody could predict". Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?

Repeat: I did not state I agreed with Hitchens. I said I shared some of his concerns. Different altogether.

It mattered to you before when stating some nonsense about quotes.

My question was:

 

"So how do you predict that this war will end based upon what these experts state?" 

I know your views on the issue, but I want your prediction on the outcome now that it seems the war is escalating.

Hirchens and myself are not the only ones concerned about Putin's reaction to defeat on the ground.

The view that a defeated Putin is more dangerous than a victorious one is widely held in Washington,* and it seems that Sholtz has some concerns as well.  

* Dismiss this as you wish. I cannot give examples as it was from an article I read some time ago.

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,310]

17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Repeat: I did not state I agreed with Hitchens. I said I shared some of his concerns. Different altogether.

It mattered to you before when stating some nonsense about quotes.

My question was:

 

"So how do you predict that this war will end based upon what these experts state?" 

I know your views on the issue, but I want your prediction on the outcome now that it seems the war is escalating.

Repeat: I just said it matters not whether they are your views or Hitchins', the points I made are in reponse to the merits of the substantive claims being made.

So yet again you fail to address a single point I made in response to your original post. You answer my question about predictions in the last post and I'll happily answer the question you just posted. It's about time you stopped the tactic of trying to distract from giving an answer to questions by simply asking further questions. 

My question was, "Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?"

Edited January 22, 2023 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

42 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So yet again you fail to address a single point I made in response to your original post. You answer my question about predictions in the last post and I'll happily answer the question you just posted. It's about time you stopped the tactic of trying to distract from giving an answer to questions by simply asking further questions. 

You didn't make any points in your response to my original post, you merely proffered childish insults. Neither did you ask any questions, instead preferring to repeat your "Im never wrong" views.

I posted Hitchen's article as a basis for debate.

Your usual twisting and ego-massaging even had the nerve to attribute his views to me. Then you denied it by bringing up some inaccuracies about quotes. Then you decided that this wasn't important, whereas you had mentioned it in the first place.

Now we get:  "...... the tactic of trying to distract from giving an answer to questions by simply asking further questions.

In fact I've asked just two, The first about WW2, which was more rhetorical, and the one about your prediction about the outcome of this war which you refuse to answer despite the fact that experts have been assessing it on a daily basis in order to advise (Western) governments strategy.

I take it you believe Ukraine will win it, recover all its previous territories, and that Putin (and those behind him) will just retreat quietly with their tails between their legs?

The outcome of war is as predictable as that?

How naive. That's the only reason to feed Ukraine with weaponry, surely?

Most wars end up around the table, and so should (will) this eventually. In the meantime, there will be a continuation of excess fatalities and destruction of a country.

Gunn Show was correct in stating that Putin's terms have been unreasonable, but isn't now Zelensky who refuses to budge?

Putin has taken such a hammering, and with the growing unrest within Russia increasing, who could predict his stance now? It won't include cessation of the Crimea though. The Crimea has a history of its own. The Russians believe (and have always ever since  it was given to Ukraine by Krushev)  it is their territory and will therefore defend it to the end.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

If Russian leaders believe that Crimea is theirs, but it is very much Ukraine's territory, then they'll just have to suck it up. Unilaterally annexing it contravenes international law. Using the Crimea as bait to appease them sets a dreadful precedent. After all, Finland was part of Russia after the early 1800s and the Treaty of Fredrikshamn until the Bolsheviks let them have their independence in 1918.

I don't see how Zelensky's demands are that unreasonable when he just wants his national borders to be respected.

[horsefly 4,310]

5 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

ou didn't make any points in your response to my original post, you merely proffered childish insults. Neither did you ask any questions, instead preferring to repeat your "Im never wrong" views.

And there you go again. Pure ad hominem distraction as a way out of addressing the points I raised. So here again are the points I made, feel free to go back and check:

"Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours." was my point made in response to the claim that tanks are not a form of defensive weaponry.

"The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets" was my point made in response to the claim that Britain would be made safer by not getting involved.

"pumping out Putin propaganda" was my response to the claim that "Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Which is precisely the stuff Putin has been spouting to justify his invasion of Ukraine throughout the conflict.

"There are many fingers required to push the red button, and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory." was my point made in response to the superficial claims that, "I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button."

So feel free to explain how those points don't constitute genuine substantive responses. Explain, one by one how they represent what you call  "childish insults". Alas! insults and distraction seems all you have to offer.

 

[horsefly 4,310]

32 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I take it you believe Ukraine will win it, recover all its previous territories, and that Putin (and those behind him) will just retreat quietly with their tails between their legs?

The outcome of war is as predictable as that?

How naive. That's the only reason to feed Ukraine with weaponry, surely?

Hahahaha!!! You couldn't make it up! Except of course that is precisely what you have done. And you have the nerve to complain about me mixing up your views with Hitchins'.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

The Russians believe (and have always ever since  it was given to Ukraine by Krushev)  it is their territory and will therefore defend it to the end.

Wow! and you accuse me of having an ego. So you speak for all of Russia do you? For someone who has just been spouting how it is impossible to predict the outcome of the war you seem bizarrely certain that you can predict the outcome for Crimea. Perhaps you need to do a bit of reading (try this for a bit more nuance https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago; here's just one relevant little snippet from a very good article, "Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.")

Edited January 22, 2023 by horsefly

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

History is always a good guide to issues such as should we support the Ukrainians in face of naked Russian aggression and 'empire' building.

Let's go back to 1940. Many in the US thought the UK was done - indeed many in Churchill's own cabinet were of the same opinion -sue for peace terms. Luckily for all, Churchills will prevailed and Britain fought on at great cost and surprised everyone (even allowing for idiotic German tactical decisions such as switching to invading Russia at the time and attacking UK cities not airfields)

Let's just then imagine what would of happened if the US had (before it was forced to enter the war) taken the same view (it was as now, quite strongly isolationist) and not sent whatever munitions, help and supplies it could.

I guess we'd all still be speaking German with a different Royal Family and the 'New Yorker' V2,  nuclear tipped would of cowered the USA into humble acquiescence.

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

History is always a good guide to issues such as should we support the Ukrainians in face of naked Russian aggression and 'empire' building.

Let's go back to 1940. Many in the US thought the UK was done - indeed many in Churchill's own cabinet were of the same opinion -sue for peace terms. Luckily for all, Churchills will prevailed and Britain fought on at great cost and surprised everyone (even allowing for idiotic German tactical decisions such as switching to invading Russia at the time and attacking UK cities not airfields)

Let's just then imagine what would of happened if the US had (before it was forced to enter the war) taken the same view (it was as now, quite strongly isolationist) and not sent whatever munitions, help and supplies it could.

I guess we'd all still be speaking German with a different Royal Family and the 'New Yorker' V2,  nuclear tipped would of cowered the USA into humble acquiescence.

Indeed! Although it would probably have been the same royal family with the Na*zi sympathiser Eddy VIII returned to his "rightful" place.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

42 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And there you go again. Pure ad hominem distraction as a way out of addressing the points I raised. So here again are the points I made, feel free to go back and check:

"Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours." was my point made in response to the claim that tanks are not a form of defensive weaponry.

"The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets" was my point made in response to the claim that Britain would be made safer by not getting involved.

"pumping out Putin propaganda" was my response to the claim that "Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Which is precisely the stuff Putin has been spouting to justify his invasion of Ukraine throughout the conflict.

"There are many fingers required to push the red button" and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory." was my point made in response to the superficial claims that, "I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button."

So feel free to explain how those points don't constitute genuine substantive responses. Explain, one by one how they represent what you call  "childish insults". Alas! insults and distraction seems all you have to offer.

 

"Pure ad hominem distraction." That's rich coming from you.

Your original post was just a denial (laced with insults) of Hitchens's views without any basis of fact. Just conjecture. For example, you cannot possibly know the restraints, or otherwise, when you state "There are many fingers required to push the red button." 

Hitchens's views were also conjecture, but it is telling that such a high profile public figure known for his extreme views has such concerns that he chose to publish them in the way he did. They cannot be dismissed so readily and with such certainty.

I am not fond of the man, but found his interpretation of the situation disturbing and, to a certain extent, too extreme, but nevertheless worthy of debate.

Last attempt: "How do you see the outcome of this escalating war?"

You have, after all, stated that being unpredictable over the matter is a "childish view."

You must therefore be able to predict the end result.

 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If Russian leaders believe that Crimea is theirs, but it is very much Ukraine's territory, then they'll just have to suck it up. Unilaterally annexing it contravenes international law. Using the Crimea as bait to appease them sets a dreadful precedent. After all, Finland was part of Russia after the early 1800s and the Treaty of Fredrikshamn until the Bolsheviks let them have their independence in 1918.

I don't see how Zelensky's demands are that unreasonable when he just wants his national borders to be respected.

Nothing you said there was remotely wrong, but, with respect, that is not the issue here.

The issue is about the reaction of the Russians to defeat.

I see now that they are planning to increase their standing army to 1.5 million. 

This is in response to their ongoing concerns about NATO expansion. Remember why NATO was conceived in the first place.**

Putin plays on this paranoia in order to maintain support in his own country. It is real, it (he) is unpredictable'

Remember the Russian foreign secretary stating, "A world without Russia is a world which doesn't exist" 

This is not nuclear blackmail as has been suggested, but reflects genuine and longstanding concerns.

This needs taking seriously and should not be lightly dismissed with entrenched views from those of us relying upon one-sided, black and white views.

** Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. The Alliance's founding treaty was signed in Washington in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries.

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

Some of us are perfectly happy speaking German. 😉

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

34 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hahahaha!!! You couldn't make it up! Except of course that is precisely what you have done. And you have the nerve to complain about me mixing up your views with Hitchins'.

Eh?

Struggling?

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

2 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Nothing you said there was remotely wrong, but, with respect, that is not the issue here.

The issue is about the reaction of the Russians to defeat.

I see now that they are planning to increase their standing army to 1.5 million. 

This is in response to their ongoing concerns about NATO expansion. Remember why NATO was conceived in the first place.

Putin plays on this paranoia in order to maintain support in his own country. It is real, it (he) is unpredictable'

Remember the Russian foreign secretary stating, "A world without Russia is a world which doesn't exist" 

This is not nuclear blackmail as has been suggested, but reflects genuine and longstanding concerns.

This needs taking seriously and should not be lightly dismissed with entrenched views from those of us relying upon one-sided, black and white views.

You've just said it, it's paranoia - and the amusing paradox is that Russian elites complain of NATO expansion when invasions such as Chechnya, Abhkazia, South Ossetia, the Donbas etc. are precisely the sort of things that would make hitherto neutral countries look for NATO assistance. This latest one just might have pushed Sweden and Finland into it.

I am certainly not aware of anyone wanting Russia to disappear off the map, but I do think you will find plenty who would like to see some form of regime change and have leadership that is more enlightened, forward-looking, and willing to work productively with European neighbours than the current cabal.

By all means take the potential hazards from their paranoia seriously, but the arguments behind it - by definition, do they really deserve to be taken as such?
 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! Although it would probably have been the same royal family with the Na*zi sympathiser Eddy VIII returned to his "rightful" place.

Edward VIII was what I was hinting at.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

You've just said it, it's paranoia - and the amusing paradox is that Russian elites complain of NATO expansion when invasions such as Chechnya, Abhkazia, South Ossetia, the Donbas etc. are precisely the sort of things that would make hitherto neutral countries look for NATO assistance. This latest one just might have pushed Sweden and Finland into it.

I am certainly not aware of anyone wanting Russia to disappear off the map, but I do think you will find plenty who would like to see some form of regime change and have leadership that is more enlightened, forward-looking, and willing to work productively with European neighbours than the current cabal.

By all means take the potential hazards from their paranoia seriously, but the arguments behind it - by definition, do they really deserve to be taken as such?
 

Of course the paranoia is nonsense (I added a bit to my last response to you about NATO)

I'll post it again:

"It's purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. The Alliance's founding treaty was signed in Washington in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries."

BUT, we are not Russian.