Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[Indy 3,310]

The full trouble with Putin and Russia was they took a gamble! The southern area of Ukraine has always had Russian leanings and that’s why there has been two forces there at a proxy war for years! Unfortunately the current leader of Ukraine pushed to hard to gain EU & NATO membership while Russia still had massive vested interests in Crimea and wasn’t about to let the south get that membership!

Bad miscalculation by Putin was to invade all of Ukraine, the original plan I’m sure would have been to quickly annex the southern pro Russian region without the massive repercussions that this war has dealt Russia!

I’m sure in time the peaceful resolution will be talked through and unfortunately Russia will get its way in the south!

Sad that it has to play out with thousands of innocent people displaced or killed because of mad men with power! Utterly ludicrous people in the world most who gain power and have little moral character!

Edited December 20, 2023 by Indy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

10 hours ago, Sheva said:

 

We shouldn’t fear Russia, they always respected and admired us. It was the west which looked to overwhelm them and it hasn’t gone well for anyone. 
 

 

 

The thing I fear about Russia is a culture where you get power and literally poisoning your political enemies is okay. That's not a society I want any truck with at all and it's not a society I want having any influence on the norms in my own culture.

Western culure is what everyone wants. That's why we have a battle keeping people out. It's not perfect, but if we hate our leaders than we can call them any name under the sun and it's okay. Weirdly enough, Macron actually said enough in a speech a while back. He's someone I slag off on a regular basis, which was a great reminder that, whatever you think of our politicians, I like our Western political culture.

Russian political culture is utterly paranoid. The idea that you can be the second largest nuclear superpower in the world and still be worried about being conquered by invasion is simply deranged.

Edited December 20, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

On 20/12/2023 at 10:36, horsefly said:

Didn't you predict Ukraine's collapse within days of the Russian invasion? Think I'll take your current predictions in the same light as I did your original claims.

Eh! I only expressed comment on the current situation. My only "prediction" was in the last paragraph.

I don't recall anybody on this forum ever claiming that. Perhaps you are confused by mention of the claim that Putin himself thought his army would be welcome in Kiev (which may or may not have been the case.) It might also have been different if Russia had employed their air power ... a totally inexplicable tactic.

I do recall saying that Russia could never be defeated, and that in any case a defeated Russia was more dangerous than a victorious Russia due to the array of weaponry that they held and the unknown'dangerous response of Putin and his supporters.

Do you deny that the Ukrainian Spring "offensive" has failed?

That the Crimea is forever Russian (if the largely ethnic Riusian population wanted otherwise?)

Do you think the Donbass will once again become part of Ukraine? If it ever really was.

Initially the Ukrainian counter was successful, but at enormous cost to lives and the West.  I note recently that Russia has reclaimed some of it in any case. So what? We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance.

Have you kept the toll of the lives lost in this war so far?

Have you noticed the ever-growing clamour for a peaceful solution stressing that Ukraine needs to sacrifice territory and proposed by European politicians and others beyond, and the increasing dissatisfaction of American politicians (especially) Republicans at the billions needed to maintain this status quo?

Billions that, imo, could have better been spent on re-enforcing the country West of the Dnipre and maintaining the vital port of Odessa rather than in a WW1 style ****-for-tat slaughter for parcels of land many of which seem to prefer Russian control to constant destruction and mortalities.

What do you think the next response of Ukraine and the West should be?

I favour billions being being spent on the defensive needs rather than offensive fantasies.

Then there will be a chance of getting round the table  ...... at long last.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

4 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Eh! I only expressed comment on the current situation. My only "prediction" was in the last paragraph.

I don't recall anybody on this forum ever claiming that. Perhaps you are confused by mention of the claim that Putin himself thought his army would be welcome in Kiev (which may or may not have been the case.) It might also have been different if Russia had employed their air power ... a totally inexplicable tactic.

I do recall saying that Russia could never be defeated, and that in any case a defeated Russia was more dangerous than a victorious Russia due to the array of weaponry that they held and the unknown'dangerous response of Putin and his supporters.

Do you deny that the Ukrainian Spring "offensive" has failed?

That the Crimea is forever Russian (if the largely ethnic Riusian population wanted otherwise?)

Do you think the Donbass will once again become part of Ukraine? If it ever really was.

Initially the Ukrainian counter was successful, but at enormous cost to lives and the West.  I note recently that Russia has reclaimed some of it in any case. So what? We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance.

Have you kept the toll of the lives lost in this war so far?

Have you noticed the ever-growing clamour for a peaceful solution stressing that Ukraine needs to sacrifice territory and proposed by European politicians and others beyond, and the increasing dissatisfaction of American politicians (especially) Republicans at the billions needed to maintain this status quo?

Billions that, imo, could have better been spent on re-enforcing the country West of the Dnipre and maintaining the vital port of Odessa rather than in a WW1 style ****-for-tat slaughter for parcels of land many of which seem to prefer Russian control to constant destruction and mortalities.

What do you think the next response of Ukraine and the West should be?

I favour billions being being spent on the defensive needs rather than offensive fantasies.

Then there will be a chance of getting round the table  ...... at long last.

 

 

It's not our concern how many Ukrainians defending their territory are killed by Russia. If they want to, then that's their right, and it's in our interests to make sure that this conflict exhausts Russia utterly. Better we spend money giving weapons to Ukraine to fight than we're mobilising NATO because Putin has moved onto a NATO country.

People are quick enough to talk about Israel stealing land; Putin has stolen land in a very cut and dry manner, even to the extent of breaking it's own commitments to respect Ukraine's borders as part of Ukraine's nuclear disarmament and kidnapped many Ukrainian children to be put in Russian families, a common tactic indicative of truly genocidal intent going well beyond civilian deaths in conflict.

It should be up to Ukraine when they want to stop fighting. It shouldn't be down to armchair pundits making judgements on whether Ukrainians should be prevented from defending their own country on a dodgy argument that it's for their own good.

And I'll say again that as co-signators to the Budapest memorandum that facilitated Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, we have an even greater responsibility to make sure Russia fails in breaking it's own commitments that it signed up to with the US and the UK.

Edited December 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not our concern how many Ukrainians defending their territory are killed by Russia. If they want to, then that's their right, and it's in our interests to make sure that this conflict exhausts Russia utterly. Better we spend money giving weapons to Ukraine to fight than we're mobilising NATO because Putin has moved onto a NATO country.

People are quick enough to talk about Israel stealing land; Putin has stolen land in a very cut and dry manner, even to the extent of breaking it's own commitments to respect Ukraine's borders as part of Ukraine's nuclear disarmament and kidnapped many Ukrainian children to be put in Russian families, a common tactic indicative of truly genocidal intent going well beyond civilian deaths in conflict.

It should be up to Ukraine when they want to stop fighting. It shouldn't be down to armchair pundits making judgements on whether Ukrainians should be prevented from defending their own country on a dodgy argument that it's for their own good.

And I'll say again that as co-signators to the Budapest memorandum that facilitated Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, we have an even greater responsibility to make sure Russia fails in breaking its own commitments that it signed up to with the US and the UK.

That is all of course correct, except for the fact that Ukraine has become incapable of defending its own territory without Western support. Zelensky has said as much, so that cannot be denied or dismissed.

We are all well aware of the evils of and resulting from the conflict. The aim should now be to avoid even more.

With indications that that that support is, unfortunately, waning despite any of the responsibilities mentioned, it is now more responsible to seek compromise. The alternative is WW3 which the West has avoided and will never, it seems, commit to.

Yes. The majority of Ukrainians still prefer resistance, but that number is declining.

 

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/new-poll-reveals-how-ukrainians-feel-about-war-future/7303180.html

                     

 

I assume your opening paragraph is badly worded. I along with all right thinking individuals remain concerned with the mortalities .... whether Ukrainian or Russian.

Edited December 25, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

18 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

That is all of course correct, except for the fact that Ukraine has become incapable of defending its own territory without Western support. Zelensky has said as much, so that cannot be denied or dismissed.

 

Which goes back to my point as to how the UK and US signed the Budapest memorandum along with Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's 1994 borders, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty, and it's territorial integrity. Russia, as one of those signatories trashed that commitment by invading; as co-signators we have a moral obligation to Ukraine to give it all material assistance in making sure the Budapest memorandum stands unless Ukraine itself decides to give up on retaking the territory conquered by Russia.

Right now, the republicans have betrayed a responsibility to support Ukraine that came with brokering Ukraine's nuclear disarmament. Given that Ukraine gave up the chance to be a nuclear power in its own right that could guarantee it's own security against Russia for that memorandum, I think it makes it especially important that we remain committed to Ukraine and to support it unreservedly.

Edited December 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Which goes back to my point as to how the UK and US signed the Budapest memorandum along with Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's 1994 borders, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty, and it's territorial integrity. Russia, as one of those signatories trashed that commitment by invading; as co-signators we have a moral obligation to Ukraine to give it all material assistance in making sure the Budapest memorandum stands unless Ukraine itself decides to give up on retaking the territory conquered by Russia.

Right now, the republicans have betrayed a responsibility to support Ukraine that came with brokering Ukraine's nuclear disarmament.

Since that response, I have added a little.

Nothing you say can be disputed except for the facts of the situation as it has unfolded, either by decreasing Ukrainian capabilities or by decreasing Western resolve.

[horsefly 4,310]

19 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Eh! I only expressed comment on the current situation. My only "prediction" was in the last paragraph.

I don't recall anybody on this forum ever claiming that. Perhaps you are confused by mention of the claim that Putin himself thought his army would be welcome in Kiev (which may or may not have been the case.) It might also have been different if Russia had employed their air power ... a totally inexplicable tactic.

I do recall saying that Russia could never be defeated, and that in any case a defeated Russia was more dangerous than a victorious Russia due to the array of weaponry that they held and the unknown'dangerous response of Putin and his supporters.

Do you deny that the Ukrainian Spring "offensive" has failed?

That the Crimea is forever Russian (if the largely ethnic Riusian population wanted otherwise?)

Do you think the Donbass will once again become part of Ukraine? If it ever really was.

Initially the Ukrainian counter was successful, but at enormous cost to lives and the West.  I note recently that Russia has reclaimed some of it in any case. So what? We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance.

Have you kept the toll of the lives lost in this war so far?

Have you noticed the ever-growing clamour for a peaceful solution stressing that Ukraine needs to sacrifice territory and proposed by European politicians and others beyond, and the increasing dissatisfaction of American politicians (especially) Republicans at the billions needed to maintain this status quo?

Billions that, imo, could have better been spent on re-enforcing the country West of the Dnipre and maintaining the vital port of Odessa rather than in a WW1 style ****-for-tat slaughter for parcels of land many of which seem to prefer Russian control to constant destruction and mortalities.

What do you think the next response of Ukraine and the West should be?

I favour billions being being spent on the defensive needs rather than offensive fantasies.

Then there will be a chance of getting round the table  ...... at long last.

 

 

FYI, Donbass is Ukrainian sovereign land, recognised as such by international law. Equally, Crimea is Ukrainian sovereign land, recognised as such by international law. Land guaranteed by treaties freely signed by Russia.

If wars were lost simply by the failure of particular offensives then Germany would have won WWI and WWII, given the early offensive failures of the Allies.

Ukraine has regained much territory since the initial invasion.

It is for the Ukrainians alone to determine whether they wish to fight on. Their commitment to date has been astonishing. Your quip, "We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance." shows a dreadfully patronising arrogance towards the sacrifice they have been willing to make to defend their land. Thank God, such attitudes were not listened to as Hitler ran rampant throughout Europe. Equally, thank God the US provided the financial support necessary for Britain's ability to resist the Na*zis in WWII.

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

We all know the rights and wrongs of the conflict. They were clear from day one. The simple fact is that Putin neither accepts them nor adheres to them.

This need to continually refer back eighty years to the situation leading to WW2 holds no relevance at all in this day and age, imo.

Would Britain and France have been so quick to declare war on Hitler's Germany after the invasion of Poland had that particular madman had access to nuclear weapons?

Besides, the USA did not just provide financial support or weaponry. It also put troops on the ground to a significant enough extent that the war was won.

Now, after two years of financing the stance against the Russians, there is a distinct likelihood that this aid could lessen or even dry up altogether. 

At the very least, it does now seem that the level of support provided for the Spring offensive will never again be equalled. Neither Germany, £4 billion+, nor the UK £3 billion + are in a position to maintain these levels, whilst the calls for a peaceful solution including concessions from Ukraine grow louder throughout Europe and beyond.

I have every right to resent this little gem as the fairly lone voice advocating a peaceful solution from early on in the conflict: 

"Your quip (?), "We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance." shows a dreadfully patronising arrogance towards the sacrifice they have been willing to make to defend their land."

Nonsense.

That the Spring offensive has failed, there is little doubt That the Crimea, the Donbass and large areas of Ukraine can be regained in any other scenario than WW3 against Russia and its allies (or an unlikely drastic change in the Russian hierarchy) is remote. For sure, territory has been regained and drones have hit the Crimea and even Moscow, but these efforts seem the limit of Ukraine's abilities.

My view that Ukraine should use all its diminishing resources (they have just again lowered the involuntary conscription age by two more years,) in retaining their territory and strengthening their existing borders rather than in fighting an unwinnable war remains. I also believe that Western resolve would harden, and a weakened Putin would get the message once this realisation is arrived at.

Without aid, the whole of the country becomes vulnerable. The stance of 'America First' by Trump and his supporters is a reality, as seems the chance of a Republican victory next year.

Neither side in this conflict has time on its side. It would seem clear however that Putin has more than Zelensky.

Edited December 26, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

The problem is that the "peaceful" solution inevitably demands that Putin/Russia profits from invasion if they gain even one inch of Ukrainian territory - and this sets a pretty shonky precedent for other parts of Europe with a high proportion of Russians that are not ruled by Russia. The Transnistria region of Moldova is the most obvious one. The Latvian city of Daugavpils is another. It also means that Ukraine gave up its nukes in vain as that protection from Russia was not forthcoming - quite the opposite. So I wouldn't be completely surprised if other countries on the Russian border decide "think we need nukes".

I think it would be a classic case of short-term "peace", which really is appeasement, and something worse happening down the line.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

39 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

We all know the rights and wrongs of the conflict. They were clear from day one. The simple fact is that Putin neither accepts them nor adheres to them.

This need to continually refer back eighty years to the situation leading to WW2 holds no relevance at all in this day and age, imo.

Would Britain and France have been so quick to declare war on Hitler's Germany after the invasion of Poland had that particular madman had access to nuclear weapons?

Besides, the USA did not just provide financial support or weaponry. It also put troops on the ground to a significant enough extent that the war was won.

Now, after two years of financing the stance against the Russians, there is a distinct likelihood that this aid could lessen or even dry up altogether. 

At the very least, it does now seem that the level of support provided for the Spring offensive will never again be equalled. Neither Germany, £4 billion+, nor the UK £3 billion + are in a position to maintain these levels, whilst the calls for a peaceful solution including concessions from Ukraine grow louder throughout Europe and beyond.

I have every right to resent this little gem as the fairly lone voice advocating a peaceful solution from early on in the conflict: 

"Your quip (?), "We should be concerned with wasted lives rather than land areas of little significance." shows a dreadfully patronising arrogance towards the sacrifice they have been willing to make to defend their land."

Nonsense.

That the Spring offensive has failed, there is little doubt That the Crimea, the Donbass and large areas of Ukraine can be regained in any other scenario than WW3 against Russia and its allies (or an unlikely drastic change in the Russian hierarchy) is remote. For sure, territory has been regained and drones have hit the Crimea and even Moscow, but these efforts seem the limit of Ukraine's abilities.

My view that Ukraine should use all its diminishing resources (they have just again lowered the involuntary conscription age by two more years,) in retaining their territory and strengthening their existing borders rather than in fighting an unwinnable war remains. I also believe that Western resolve would harden, and a weakened Putin would get the message once this realisation is arrived at.

Without aid, the whole of the country becomes vulnerable. The stance of 'America First' by Trump and his supporters is a reality, as seems the chance of a Republican victory next year.

Neither side in this conflict has time on its side. It would seem clear however that Putin has more than Zelensky.

I fundamentally don't agree that the war's unwinnable for Ukraine. Although Ukraine hasn't actually taken back, it did make enough progress to leave all Russian supply lines to Crimea very vulnerable. It all depends on how much material support Ukraine continues to get. In my opinion, if America is bowing out in providing material support, then Europe needs to up its game on material support for its own sake.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

34 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The problem is that the "peaceful" solution inevitably demands that Putin/Russia profits from invasion if they gain even one inch of Ukrainian territory - and this sets a pretty shonky precedent for other parts of Europe with a high proportion of Russians that are not ruled by Russia. The Transnistria region of Moldova is the most obvious one. The Latvian city of Daugavpils is another. It also means that Ukraine gave up its nukes in vain as that protection from Russia was not forthcoming - quite the opposite. So I wouldn't be completely surprised if other countries on the Russian border decide "think we need nukes".

I think it would be a classic case of short-term "peace", which really is appeasement, and something worse happening down the line.

 

None of that can be disputed or could ever be, but what is the alternative?

We need to ask ourselves the extent to which the Ukraine (and especially the Crimea) is exceptional, perhaps even unique, in the  Russian psyche as exhibited by Putin when considering any future expansion he might favour.

We have to consider the extent to which Russia/Putin is damaged by Ukraine's resistance and the West's sanctions thus far when fearing any further expansionism.

The current impasse is unsustainable, in casualties, damage and cost. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

None of that can be disputed or could ever be, but what is the alternative?

We need to ask ourselves the extent to which the Ukraine (and especially the Crimea) is exceptional, perhaps even unique, in the  Russian psyche as exhibited by Putin when considering any future expansion he might favour.

We have to consider the extent to which Russia/Putin is damaged by Ukraine's resistance and the West's sanctions thus far when fearing any expansionism.

The current impasse is unsustainable, in casualties, damage and cost. 

What do you mean by unsustainable? The conflct in Afghanistan was sustained for 20 years before the US lost the will to carry on. The defence of Ukraine has only been going on a few years and is being prosecuted by Ukrainians motivated by defending their own country. Russia has also lowered its conscription ages.

Time actually favours the defenders in any conflict provided they have reliable sources of armaments.

Ultimately, if peace comes about in any way where Russia is seen to win anything at all then Putin's political future is secured.

Edited December 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you mean by unsustainable? The conflct in Afghanistan was sustained for 20 years before the US lost the will to carry on.

Time actually favours the defenders in any conflict provided they have reliable sources of armaments.

American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan, and it was a conflict against a faction, not a country.

Putin sees himself as the defender (especially of the Crimea) not the aggressor and as such has proven to have sufficient resources to resist any of Ukraine's capabilities.

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan, and it was a conflict against a faction, not a country.

Putin sees himself as the defender (especially of the Crimea) not the aggressor and has proven to have sufficient resources to resist any of Ukraine's capabilities.

 

Who cares how Putin sees himself? I don't see him that way, and the facts of what has happened don't bear that out either, with the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children and placement in Russian families in their homeland.

Edited December 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Who cares how Putin sees himself? I don't see him that way, and the facts of what has happened don't bear that out either, with the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children and placement in Russian families in their homeland.

I suspect those on the Ukrainian front line might.

The list of Putin's evils is a mile long, but that is no reason to shun the possibility of striving for a peaceful solution, no matter how remote a possibility this might seem.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

5 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I suspect those on the Ukrainian front line might.

The list of Putin's evils is a mile long, but that is no reason to shun the possibility of striving for a peaceful solution, no matter how remote a possibility this might seem.

Striving for a peaceful solution? As far as I can see, your peace plan seems to be supporting the notion of depriving Ukraine of arms to fight a defensive war it chooses to fight. That sounds more like support for allowing Russia to win. That then puts the terms of the ending of the war entirely in Russia's hands, up to and including the possibility  of achieving Russia's original stated goal of the complete obliteration of Ukraine as a nation state in its own right.

Edited December 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Striving for a peaceful solution? As far as I can see, your peace plan seems to be supporting the notion of depriving Ukraine of arms to fight a defensive war it chooses to fight. That sounds more like support for allowing Russia to win.

 

That's a misconstruction. I would be in favour of increasing aid to Ukraine if it were to be used to strengthen that country defensively and thwart any further Russian expansionism.

Arming it in order to reclaim lost territory has largely failed, and it seems it is unlikely to ever get that level of support again.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

14 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

That's a misconstruction. I would be in favour of increasing aid to Ukraine if it were to be used to strengthen that country defensively and thwart any further Russian expansionism.

Arming it in order to reclaim lost territory has largely failed, and it seems it is unlikely to ever get that level of support again.

 

You can't lay conditions on how you arm Ukraine. You either arm the country or you don't. Russia's control of Crimea is very tenuous. That's why Russia is desperately hoping that the West is going to lose interest in supporting Ukraine.

The important bit for Russia is Crimea, as a naval base to project power into the Middle East.The entire reason that Russia wanted to go further was because the whole fresh water supply for Crimea comes from Ukraine and that Crimea is largely cut off from mainland Russia, making it vulnerable. Supplies to crimea depend on the road bridge to mainland Russia and the land corridor. There's every reason to believe that any peace agreement with Russia would be as worthless as that in 2014 and the Budapest memorandum. It'll just be a chance for Russia to regroup for another go when it's ready.

The only way that there should be a negotiated peace that leaves Russia with any sort of land gain is one that includes NATO membership for the remainder of Ukraine, but Russia would never agree to that, because that would mean it couldn't pursue further acquisitions.

Edit: Overall, I think you're going to see it pan out the way you're advocating for as far as arms to Ukraine are concerned, but I think you'll see events unfold beyond that more akin to how I expect than how you're hoping for.

Edited December 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I fundamentally don't agree that the war's unwinnable for Ukraine. Although Ukraine hasn't actually taken back, it did make enough progress to leave all Russian supply lines to Crimea very vulnerable. It all depends on how much material support Ukraine continues to get. In my opinion, if America is bowing out in providing material support, then Europe needs to up its game on material support for its own sake.

Aid has been delayed from the US only because MAGA Republicans are disgracefully using it to force Biden to spend more on the Southern border. The money will flow again as there are a significant number of Republicans who still fully support the Ukrainians. Putin will be hoping to hold on long enough for his puppet Trump to take power again. Biden is very aware that to allow Putin a win would be a massive threat to European and US security. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Aid has been delayed from the US only because MAGA Republicans are disgracefully using it to force Biden to spend more on the Southern border. The money will flow again as there are a significant number of Republicans who still fully support the Ukrainians. Putin will be hoping to hold on long enough for his puppet Trump to take power again. Biden is very aware that to allow Putin a win would be a massive threat to European and US security. 

It's very very clear that Europe can't rely on the US to provide its security. Interestingly, Germany has just deployed 5,000 troops to Lithuania on a permanent basis, which is a landmark in German remilitarisation since World War 2.

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

Speaking of puppets, what about Orban in the EU?

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

18 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's very very clear that Europe can't rely on the US to provide its security. Interestingly, Germany has just deployed 5,000 troops to Lithuania on a permanent basis, which is a landmark in German remilitarisation since World War 2.

Interestingly, there was an hour-long programme on Ukraine on Sky News earlier today spent getting the opinions of two military strategists

One Shaun Bell virtually echoed a lot of my views. The other, whose name I don't recall, was more positive and had views akin to your own.

Both agreed that Russia was too damaged economically and militarily to contemplate further expansion for getting on for  a decade and more, and also that the failure of the Spring offensive would result in a lack of resolve from the West, with less aid resulting from this.

Unfortunately, neither of them saw the war concluding any time soon, and talked of potential years of conflict.

It is a difficult situation all-round.

It was also mentioned that Zelensky was coming under some pressure at home, although it was difficult to deduce whether it was from hawks or doves ... perhaps my attention was distracted. By contrast, they considered Putin to be in his strongest position since the Wagner "revolt" and that this was demonstrated by his recent visit to the Middle East and his growing relationship with China.

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[KiwiScot 1,459]

Russia still winning I see. Worse thing for me is we're trying to go back to normal while they are gearing up

[horsefly 4,310]

19 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's very very clear that Europe can't rely on the US to provide its security. Interestingly, Germany has just deployed 5,000 troops to Lithuania on a permanent basis, which is a landmark in German remilitarisation since World War 2.

The more Europe becomes independent of US support the better, given the possibility of a calamitous Trump presidency. However, it remains the case that it is only the Maga morons who don't understand that the security of the US is inextricably tied up with maintaining a strong NATO. Hence Republicans and Democrats joining forces last week to make it all but impossible for Trump to leave NATO. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-withdraw-congress-defense-bill-2023-12?r=US&IR=T

Edited December 27, 2023 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

2 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Russia still winning I see. Worse thing for me is we're trying to go back to normal while they are gearing up

They're taking the opportunity to make as much progress as possible while Ukraine has supply issues. They probably can't sustain it though.

Edited December 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 22/11/2023 at 16:46, littleyellowbirdie said:

Russia making hay while all eyes are on Gaza. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67465803

Says the BiBiC, who employ posh ex lags such as Fry to make their points.

Alternative xmas massage production team....“[Production company] Fulwell73 was founded by Leo Pearlman, Benjamin Turner, Gabe Turner, and Ben Winston. All were members of the Zionist youth group B’nei Akiva, which runs pre-military programmes to enrol members in the Israeli occupation forces. They have also spoken at events for the Israel lobby group, the Jewish Leadership council.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,570]

5 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Says the BiBiC, who employ posh ex lags such as Fry to make their points.

Alternative xmas massage production team....“[Production company] Fulwell73 was founded by Leo Pearlman, Benjamin Turner, Gabe Turner, and Ben Winston. All were members of the Zionist youth group B’nei Akiva, which runs pre-military programmes to enrol members in the Israeli occupation forces. They have also spoken at events for the Israel lobby group, the Jewish Leadership council.

Good for them. You personally still peddle lies on this subject though.

There are 15 million Jews in the world. 6 million in the states, 7 million in Israel and hundreds of thousands scattered throughout a variety of countries.

Peak global Jewish population was 17 million in 1939. That went down to 11 million thanks to the holocaust. Note that it isn't even back to pre-Holocaust levels 78 years on. . The only place where the Jewish population grows through birth is in Israel. As such you can characterise the anti-Zionist rhetoric as genocidal. People like you apparently are on the side of those who want genocide against going on half of the world's Jews for the sake of a couple of million Islamist Arabs who refuse to accept Israel  in a world with billions of Arabs.

Edited December 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[KiwiScot 1,459]

Turkish Parliment signs up for Swedish Nato membership. Just needs Erodgan to sign it off and also Hungary still holding out

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

Isn't the Hungarian government in recess or something, hence the delay re. Swedish membership there?