Sorry for the protracted spacing between posts: both CU and meself are heavily preoccupied, the stories may some day be told.
Anyhow, I thought it might be time for a short update on the Russian ops in Ukraine. You might recall that we noted several weeks ago how the initial Russian invasion failed entirely to utilise the highly coherent and well considered Red Army operational doctrine that must surely have been what their [military] leadership was weaned on, and was of course purpose-made for ops across these very battlefields.
Now, it seems, they've dusted off those manuals; because we are told they are advancing on a couple of the fronts along parallel, mutually-supporting axes. Well, that's certainly part of what the book says: so far, so good.
BUT
They are doing this without the prescribed massive opening barrage by land and air, AND they are inching forward ... slowly.
For various reasons, This Won't Work. As with blitzkrieg, speed is of the essence. If, as seems to be the case, UKR forces are militarily well educated, well led, and adequately provisioned (we know they have phenomenal will to resist, and excellent operational intelligence) then even if outnumbered they will be able to do serious business.
Of course, sheer weight of numbers could eventually tell. But it's not clear Putin can muster that without some kind of quite extraordinary call-up - which would need a period of training - and major resupply (from China, one assumes). It's not clear to me he'll have anything significant to display on Victory Day.
Which, I suppose, makes it all the more likely he'll pull some other kind of stunt for that occasion. There seems to be trouble brewing in Moldova ...
ND
45 comments:
"major resupply (from China, one assumes)"
I'm still puzzled that he didn't buy nice, modern stuff from Afghanistan.
To take and hold ground in the open needs a force of 3:1 against an opponent. To do so in a city 6:1. This, I believe, was the calculation before the era portable smart weaponry.
In other words he cannot take Ukraine, much less the rest of Europe and certainly not members of NATO that will benefit from air superiority.
The reason for the West supplying munitions to Ukraine (oft repeated by politicians, journalists and people I speak to) is that if we don't stop Putin here then he will take all of Europe.
This is a blatant lie.
Set aside what I think of the reasons for the invasion (whether I am right or wrong), the justification for pushing Putin over a red line and protracting this bloody war is based on a blatant lie.
Stalin took Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Latvia, etc. I think Putin wants to restore the situation we had in Europe in the 1950s, with Russia dominating half of what is now the EU.
He has been so paranoid about being attacked by the EU countries that he has brought about what he feared. This is what comes of being trained by the KGB.
Of course the French and the Germans did both invade Russia (and failed). But is it really likely that they would do that again ?
He also dreads any kind of democracy in Russia. It's all very well being a tyrant, but there's no safe way out.
Don
We all know they are perfectly capable of beginning with that "massive opening barrage", so why not be honest and admit that the reason they are not doing so is that they are trying to minimise both casualties and damage to infrastructure?
UKR forces are militarily well educated, (by us), well led, (apparently by the Americans) and adequately provisioned (by NATO). At the beginning of the conflict they also outnumbered the invading Russian Army and did so on their own home territory.
Just for once could you take off your NATO hat and be honest that while Russia may not have achieved everything they wanted, the invasion has not been a failure?
I remember the confident news pronouncements in the middle of March that Russia had at most 10 days of ammunition left and would be forced to sue for peace. That's been proved to be untrue as well.
"BUT - They are doing this without the prescribed massive opening barrage by land and air"
Because from the beginning the idea was that
a) Ukraine would fold a la Crimea - which 2015 non-NATO boosted Crimea may have done
b) as it was officially "not a war" but a "special military exercise"
the massive bombardments were right out, none of that at all. Baghdad shock and awe tactics off the table. After all, despite NDs cartoons, Ukrainians are officially their brothers.
Russia doesn't want to make a desert and call it peace unless they absolutely have to. The US want to force them to do so, as does Boris to save his own political skin. As for Zelensky, he has at least 2 countries to flee to (US or Israel), unlike the average Ukrainian.
PS - the trouble in Moldova (Russian-language TV masts destroyed etc) seems to be our lot - perhaps even literally our lot. I wonder if Hereford is empty at the moment?
Anyone care to comment on yesterdays news?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands
Pressed on whether he would rule out the prospect of the US taking military action against Solomon Islands were a (Chinese) naval base to be established, and, if not, whether he was comfortable with Australian prime minister Scott Morrison’s talk of the base being a “red line” for Australia, he said: “I don’t have a lot to add beyond what I’ve already stated.” ... The rhetoric escalated in the wake of the statement, with the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, saying Australia had “the same red line” as the US when it came to China’s involvement in Solomon Islands, and defence minister Peter Dutton using his Anzac Day address on Monday to declare: “Australia should prepare for war”, claiming that China was “on a very deliberate course at the moment”.
Red lines being drawn, with threats of military action should those lines be crossed. Anyone care to argue that this is outrageous threatening of a sovereign nation?
Sorry - I believe the destruction was actually in Transnistria, the pro-Russian breakaway bit of Moldova.
"Russia doesn't want to make a desert and call it peace unless they absolutely have to."
It isn't Russia, it's Putin. Of course he didn't want to make a desert. He intended to take over the Ukraine quickly and easily, and install a friendly dictator similar to Lukashenko in Belarus.
His dream is that Russia should be the equal of the USA. He should read up on how the US constitution was worked out and why.
Don
"He also dreads any kind of democracy in Russia. It's all very well being a tyrant, but there's no safe way out.
Don"
Idi Amin was one that managed it.
"He also dreads any kind of democracy in Russia. It's all very well being a tyrant, but there's no safe way out.
The late Christopher Fildes had a solution - a private island somewhere in the Caribbean called "Dundictatin'" where tyrants could retire to
"He should read up on how the US constitution was worked out and why."
And he should do it quickly before constitutional government is forgotten in the US.
"It isn't Russia, it's Putin."
CIA Director Bill Burns in 2008 – “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]” and “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests”
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592
More on Bill Burns. He's Biden's CIA director. Fluent Russian speaker, ex Moscow ambassador.
Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Don Cox should question the assumption that taking in the BBC, Mail (or Guardian - they are in lockstep on this) and the Economist makes him well informed.
When did Ukraine join NATO?
What year was it?
If it’s fine to invade other countries Russia don’t like in case they join a defensive arrangement, maybe Russia should quickly declare war on Sweden and Finland before they vote to join.
If the provocation caused the war, why are Sweden and Finland even having a vote? Don’t they know that will trigger the Vlad to a self defensive, purely proportional, non aggressive, nuclear exchange?
BQ - there's no point (as you well know) taking action AFTER they've joined, as Article 5 commits us all to pile in on them, with a nuclear exchange not off the table.
You could ask yourself why the US and Australia are currently threatening military action against the Solomon Islands if they host a Chinese military base?
I presume Sweden and Finland, probably under heavy US pressure, are thinking "well, Russia can't fight us all - what could possibly go wrong?".
Interesting times. A triumph of US foreign policy, getting Europe to impoverish itself in the name of Standing Up To This Decade's Hitler.
Be good to get some of our esteemed hosts views on the Russian military when time allows.
Importance of NCOs, especially when dealing with the sink estate feral members of a military, something Russia clearly has a surfeit of, seems to have a bearing on behaviour. Whilst Putin obviously expected some bad behaviour (the exiting of some of the Geneva Conventions being a Pretty Big Hint), I suspect - in private - he wouldn't approve of the levels seen.
Reliance on Western materials - looks like their ability to build tank and tank parts has shut up shop until sanctions are removed, and there are theories that the changing make up of attacks is reflective of functional stock levels.
Yes Men - there's no way Putin would have dropped his paras down early doors if he expected them to be bullet sponges. It's clear he expected Ukraine to fold, leaving a foundation for further expansions. It's not like he hasn't advertised his desires to get the band back together often enough over the last few years. Getting little other than positive feedback seems to have made our little 4D chess playing strategic hypergenius into someone who'd struggle at noughts and crosses.
There are probably a few years worth of posts on this.
Also, it's been interesting to see how surprisingly flammable bits of Russia are. Near the Ukraine border you can understand a few, but looks to have been a rash of fires even towards the further Eastern reaches. Could just be that they're more noticeable now of course.
"its clear he expected Ukraine to fold"
Agreed - that was certainly the ideal world.
"leaving a foundation for further expansions"
Nonsense. Another "This Decade's Hitler" reader. Not everything in the news is true, and not everything that's true makes the news - like Hunter Biden's laptop. I bet a US team are busy sanitising bank records in Kiev, if they've not done so already.
BQ
There was an 8 year civil war raging in East Ukraine (not West Ukraine, I might add) where there were pockets of Russian speaking and Russian supporting Ukrainians who disagreed with the (US inspired) 2014 putsch in Kyiv and never accepted it - specially after their language was stripped of national recognition.
There is no similarity with Sweden nor Finland, they are not in civil war and neither are they recognised as corrupt states with extremism problems.
Sweden nor Finland have any historical or cultural affinity with Moscow and would probably have been able to join NATO if they wished.
Ukraine was singled out by Russia as a specific red line.
Now we have made an enemy of a nuclear armed nut job with - possibly - not long to live and backed him into a corner, all of his inner circles of staff (firmly in place for 20 years) too. They and their families' lives hinge on not losing.
Let's hope our intelligence services are extremely good and know what they're doing.
E-K - I disagree that Putin is a "nut job". He said many times in block capitals that NATO Ukraine was a red line, and has acted accordingly.
"with - possibly - not long to live"
The stress on him must be intense, he may well be ill - but then its been like that most of his career. Wresting control of Russia from the oligarch looters was a titanic achievement and one that must have many times worried him for his longevity. It could well be that the current crop of oligarchs were happy while the going was good, resent losing their London homes/yachts/callgirls and are as homicidal as their predecessors.
But he's not a nut job. Look at the rouble - back where it was 6 months ago. Facing down pretty much the entire US/EU/UKAUSNZCAN is no game for nut jobs.
Transnistria update in the Guardian btw
"The interior ministry of Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria issued a statement claiming it came under attack from Ukraine. It said drones were spotted and shots were fired near Kolbasna, which it claims contains one of the largest ammunition dumps in Europe."
Hitler did invade his neighbours. Made territorial demand after territorial demand.
The entente powers guaranteed Poland in MARCH 1939.
Not September. March.
The reason was Germany took over the parts of Czechoslovakia he didn’t gain in the peace of Munich. The Czech takeover was not even the first claim. The similarity is clear. Hitler kept asking for bits here and there from other, far smaller nations. He even formed an alliance with his most hated and most feared enemy, the USSR, to enable it.
Adolf had been bent on taking back all the territory lost at the German high Point of WW1. The Versailles Treaty was broken by Germany. As was the Treaty of Locarno, guaranteeing European borders, by Germany moving into the Rhineland. The Austrian Anchluss followed. 99% of Austrians agreed. Wow. That’s impressive. Except that those that didn’t agree could not vote. However, undoubtedly, many, many favoured that union with their old ally, and new strongman. Nazi get any also made claims and occupations and treaty and territory changes in the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary and the final straw, Poland.
Is Putin Hitler?
Who knows.
His military was the size and capability of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe that terrified the western democracies. The threats of nuclear Armageddon sound similar to Goering’s boasts to destroy cities with bombs. ( something that at the time politicians feared as the equivalent of nuclear war. Bombers like flying artillery. Unstoppable.)
Germany was in a far worse economic situation than Russia. Productivity way below the UK. Weaker industrial base! Imagine that!
Germany recovered quicker from the Great Depression, with a military spending plan and conscription. Saw the opportunity while the western nations were weak and would not fight, and went for it. And when the gamble, (war with Britain and France) didn’t pay off, wasn’t much concerned. the inevitable war was just brought forward a few years.
If you believe appeasement as a policy could pay off. That prevents wars. That allows peace and negotiation and contains aggression, then support the right of Russia to do as it pleases, to whomever it wants, in any way it likes, to avoid another world war. Same for China, take what you want, just leave us alone and let us buy your stuff and fuels.
This may be the actual, sensible policy. Stay out until the missiles rain down on a country that has to be defended.
If you believe that appeasement only emboldens a dictator and eventually tens of millions die as a result of it, then worry less about Putin’s red lines and more about being ready to prevent him crossing yours.
I realise that EK sounds like a Kremlin Bot, and I, a munitions salesman to NATO.
Neither of us are either.
The line is not clear what the west does now. The USA is being very bellicose. Unusually so in what is still a diplomatic incident not a wartime conflict, just yet.
Possibly as it has a lot of intel from inside the Kremlin. Has seen the Russian Forces and rates them as poor. Wants to be very tough in talk and action to put pressure on China to stay out and not make its own moves, elsewhere, where the USA really worries a big war will occur.
And the usual politics. Biden looked terrible in the Afghanistan retreat, uk, not a whole lot better. Both have imminent, semi important, elections.
>Sweden nor Finland have any historical or cultural affinity with Moscow
Not quite. Finland was part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917. Sweden and Russia have been at war several times, notably when the Swedes invaded Russia in 1708.
Seems to me the whole Ukraine thing was/is a failure of diplomacy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We should have played nice with old Poot.
But the Secret Squirrels were still poring over old J le Carre novels and The Pentagon was keeping up a hate campaign in order to keep their budgets up. Can't upset The Pentagon. Then Poot proved not up to the job of a quiet takeover of eastern Ukraine - about which no-one in the West would have cared. A word to the wise would have saved a lot of bother.
Now the diplomats will have to get off their bottoms. If you tactically nuke us, we will tactically nuke you - no hard feelings but we are not going Full Tonto - if you don't. I doubt it will get that far. If Poot sticks to eastern Ukraine then Zelenskyy will be told to suck it up.
The difficulty is how to make Russia look like suffering afterwards. I can't see reparations on the horizon - the EU will pay up but at least Boris is off the hook although we will never see the armaments money. So no reparations, Poot is in the clear. Perhaps a gas terminal on Germany's coast would send a message.
OK well sticking mainly to the military points (there's no shortage of amateur global geo-political analysis)
Part 1
Wildgoose - We all know they are perfectly capable of beginning with that "massive opening barrage"
Not any more. I'd say they might have, had they prepared "properly", done that back in Feb. Now I really question whether they'd be able to do it on a broad front(s), without scraping together virtually every tube they can muster. (Have you any idea how many tubes it takes, and how much ammo? and the logistics involved? No, you don't) Until the Chinese replenishments arrive, that is. BTW, if you are thinking airpower, well see what happens to the remnants of that when the German Geppards arrive on the scene, as seems to be the best Germany is going to offer ... but not a bad offer, for all that.
I remember the confident news pronouncements in the middle of March that Russia had at most 10 days of ammunition left and would be forced to sue for peace
Maybe so, but not around here
why not be honest and admit that the reason they are not doing so is that they are trying to minimise both casualties and damage to infrastructure?
Again, maybe that was the Feb thinking, and indeed if you can be arsed, you'll look back and find I suggested exactly that, at the time. Honest enough for you?
But now?! Trying to minimise casualties & damage?? Have you been watching?
Just for once could you take off your NATO hat and be honest that while Russia may not have achieved everything they wanted, the invasion has not been a failure?
Oh, it's a failure alright, because the primary audience was to have been not just the Russian public, but also Xi, (and many other leaders of far lesser account around the world). There is - see below - an element of "can't lose" for Russia in this; but it's still a failure. And a really glaring, public one.
Anon - Russia doesn't want to make a desert and call it peace unless they absolutely have to
Agreed, but that's where they've ended up. Sadly, this fallback scorched-earth position does actually serve its turn in a wholly negative way, telling Georgia et al: only smoking ruin awaits if you step out of line. Not quite as uplifting and positive as "hey guys, re-join the Glorious Russian Federation where you belong!", but maybe OK as a wooden-spoon prize.
Part 2
Sorry, straying into the geo-politics towards the end there. Anyhow ...
Caeser Hēméra - Good to get some of our esteemed hosts views on the Russian military ... Importance of NCOs
Yes, every army relies on a good cadre of senior NCOs, and the Red Army had the tradition of the formidable старшина, or senior sergeant / sergeant-major type. But not actually much below that, because few troops were regulars (or 'contract' in new Russian parlance), so it was mainly just the старшина, kicking conscript butt. Also, a system of VERY simple drills and orders, (a) because of the very many languages spoken across the USSR and (b) because in ultra-cold weather with rather basic kit, only simple orders and drills can be effective - it freezes the brain. (Seriously, trust me on this one, I've lived there.)
But not just NCOs: they relied on Colonels and above who really grasped the doctrine and could wield the formations they commanded. And not much in between.
... Reliance on Western materials - looks like their ability to build tank and tank parts has shut up shop until sanctions are removed
Indeed. There are interesting reports (I'll try to find an open-source one) of just how much of "their" hi-tech kit is 99% dependent on parts made in the west.
... no way Putin would have dropped his paras down early doors if he expected them to be bullet sponges
Yup, we've said the same here.
... interesting to see how surprisingly flammable bits of Russia are. Near the Ukraine border you can understand a few, but looks to have been a rash of fires even towards the further Eastern reaches. Could just be that they're more noticeable now of course
Absolutely - they are just incompetent at really basic levels. Bits of their fabled natural gas infrastructure are blowing up all the time - the constant source of random blips in their legendary gas export reliability, which (until the first UKR crisis) was politically 100% - i.e. they always bust a gut to meet export demand, including letting their own people freeze - but practically-speaking probably little better than 90%. Their big western customers, esp Germany, Italy and France, maintained huge storage facilities for the specific (though unacknowledged) purpose of ironing these out, which they did without making any fuss. They were quite happy with the 100% political reliability of the supply. Random is random: no point in mentioning these things - between friends ...
Some of the comments here are bat-shit crazy.
How do I resign my membership?
Easy. You simply pay us the exit fee
(PayPal accepted)
ND
The cabinet seem to be going all out to fight a war with Russia. We are not just urging the Ukrainians to kill Russians in Ukraine, but urging them to take the fight into Russia itself. Nobody would be very surprised if we were to find that some British army bods were in Ukraine, fighting the good fight, as it were.
You don't have to be Sergei Lavrov to think that there must eventually comes a point where the Russians strike back at us, perhaps targeting "decision making centres" in London. The chance of this happening is pretty small, but it's not zero.
Two years ago, the country was shut down because of a disease that killed maybe 1% of the people it infected. So if the precautionary principle is so important, why are we now so reckless about the chances of nuclear war with Russia?
+1 DJK.
I'm no Russian bot as the Rt Hon BQ says.
"Putin has to be made to pay a heavy price for this invasion." (to no-one in particular)
Yup. Food shortages and rocketing fuel inflation in the West, that'll learn 'im. We are about to see a unified, hungry, technologically advanced but idle and armed Germany once again. Great. Really great.
"China needs to be warned off starting THE big war."
Oh. China. Yes. We've show them our Achilles and it isn't conventional warfare - sooo last century, as is "We must stand up to Russia or they will TAKE OVER THE WORLD !!!!"
This totally ignores the fact that it is NATO/US/EU expansionism that has been spreading through Europe like an ink spill on a blotting pad and turned red in Ukraine with a bloody coup called a *Popular* revolution - so popular it resulted in an 8 year civil war.
Why is *appeasement* a dirty word ?
Why is no-one taking Russian threats to go nuclear seriously ? And is this war really being fought for the benefit of Ukraine herself ? What sort of democracy do Ukrainians think exists in the EUSSR - once in you cannot escape, as we are proving.
-------
*Affinity* was the operative word in my "Sweden nor Finland has historic or cultural affinity..." as in *liking* Russia.
There is a residual Russian element in Ukraine, a historic legacy that is politically, culturally and religiously Russian leaning.
------
No I don't think Putin is a nut job - but I'm working on the premise that is being set by the media and our politicians.
Taking as what they say as true. Why are we treating the threats of nuclear action by his No2 (Lavrov) with airy dismissal when we have never done so with Russians in the past ?
Sorry to Nick for deviating from the interesting technical stuff.
Anonymous @ 7.12
There are several arrangements by which you can resign your membership.
A) Provide the owners of the blog (CU,BQ or ND) with your email and they will ask you to resign if necessary. (The bar is so low I'm not sure that it's ever happened.)
Or
B) Just Fuck off.
*waggles cigar* Why would I want to be in a club that would have me as a member ?
If they are very selective in the bits of London they obliterate I shan't complain too much.
But I do think it better they make a "demonstration" against European non-nuclear powers e.g. hit Berlin, Brussels, and Dublin. That would sober up the UK and French governments.
Or if they would rather avoid NATO members, just settle for Dublin. If they are prepared to risk nuking a non-nuclear NATO country then Brussels would be the best target - EU and NATO HQs.
I can't say I care for boasting like this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-intel-helped-ukraine-shoot-down-russian-plane-carrying-hundreds-paratroopers
Dearieme: I don't care for it either. May be total borrocks, of course.
As ND noted, the Russians will want to have something to show ready for their victory parade on 9th May. (Perhaps a march past of captured American equipment?) Equally, the Ukrainians or NATO will want to do something to spoil the party.
Back in 2010 we were able to send a party of the Welsh Guards to take part in the the victory parade in Red Square. How times have changed.
I haven't commented on any of the Ukraine stuff so far but I'm beginning to wonder if we are being softened up for a proper war now. All the MSM/government are upping the rhetoric which doesn't help. I have no doubt Putin means what he says and the UK would be his number one target as he hates us as much as the US and sees us as interfering busybodies.
Why the fighting started in the first place is ridiculous. Nato and Ukraine had been warned enough times of the threat Russia sees to Nato expansion and the response of the west has been almost as if Ukraine is already a member. None of the fighting would have started if Ukraine was happy to remain a neutral country and to elect their own leader without US interference.
I for one do not want a nuclear strike on London. I don't know what Liz Truss and the rest of them are thinking and they need to come to their senses quickly before it's too late.
@ND,
"Indeed. There are interesting reports (I'll try to find an open-source one) of just how much of "their" hi-tech kit is 99% dependent on parts made in the west."
Well, how about a comparison of how much US and Uk kit is manufactured in China?
I seem to recall the Yanks under Trump having a bit of a fit when they realised just how many of their essential military components are no longer manufactured in the USA. Didn't they bin all the tooling and the production line for the F22 for example?
I doubt very much that the Chinese, the Middle East or the Brics are too impressed with the hippocritical zeal of the Yanks when it comes to appropriating (stealing) Russian assets or their two faced dealing viz. the Solomon Islands.
Muh Constitution! Muh Rule ofLaw!, lol.
Also, at what point does it become impossible to disguise that Biden is mental and others are pulling his strings?
Well. Putin had better hope that Chinese parts are better than what is fitted to my bathroom and kitchen plumbing.
I now have an account with my local plumbing merchants such is the frequency of breakages.
What I'd give to have the old Twyford cisterns, taps and plugs back. They never ever went wrong and taps only needed servicing with 2p washers.
Other kit is terrific (guitars) but I'd be dubious about flying in a plane serviced with Chinese pattern parts.
Interesting watching Russia in the meatgrinder that is Duverger's law.
Not strong enough to take over a relatively minor neighbour will be noted in both DC and Beijing.
Putin will go down in history as the man who bet it all and lost.
I see from Apple News that today's Wall Street Journal has a piece entitled "The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War".
There are no winners in a nuclear war, but this is the level that the clowns in charge have sunk to, by making it explicit exactly why Russia considers a hostile military pact on their borders is an existential threat.
I may not agree with some of the posters sentiments here
(still believing that Russia had no good reason to try to annex Ukraine, which was plan A - Ukraine was not invading Russian territory, and Russia has a history of doing things like that (crimea, bits of georgia, moldova) and a history of effectively flattening countries (syria) and at best not taking steps to minimise civilian casualties and at worst using cluster bombs etc (chechenya, syria). Yes the west does not have clean hands - Iraq2 - but calling that out does not make what the Russians are doing less wrong)
But right now, I do think everyone is lying - or rather conducting war by attempting to modifying the opponents views on many fronts.
Putin has threatened tactical nukes / missiles on Kyiv
The US press is playing its part - "The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War" the small print almost certainly says (in ukraine)
Russia is regrouping and resupplying and plans a new attack from the east
The US is promising the $30bn of the weapons needed to beat that
Russia threatens countries that supply Ukraine
(I do not see them launching missiles on London, they are not precise enough to target the parts of the west end they do not own)
Finland and Sweden say they are thinking of joining Nato
The west has frozen Russian money
The Russians will pay their govt bonds in rubles to a Russian bank account and then freeze the money (h/t alphaville)
Underneath it all there are some ground truths
A small reasonably supplied /trained / organised army that thinks it is fighting for its existence
is placed against
A much larger less well supplied / trained / organised army that is not quite sure why it is there (see this weeks economist).
If there is not a negotiated solution, here is my prediction:
This will become a sort of 'warfare petri dish' (all wars are probably like that)
This time the experiment will be a smallish skilled core supplemented by a lot of civilians with things that can stop tanks and aircraft against a large army with those weapons.
The thing that has not changed is that this is brought to your TV by the USA and Russia.
The thing that has changed is that is is not clear whose side Germany is on (which may be the point)
Ben Wallace now says that WW3 could be declared by Putin on Victory Day. This is not just in my head then.
So.
We are stuck in the EU catflap over the NIP because we fear a resurgence in PIRA terrorism - thus Boris delivers Brino instead of the Brexit we voted for.
Yet he is prepared to go to nuclear war with Russia for the right of Ukraine to join the EU and NATO.
>Boris Johnson's junta has just offered ()elensky ( Don't forget the letter 'Z' has been cancelled ) British citizenship, along with his family, most of the current Ukranian top level administration, and officials of the SBU.
I was angry when I heard this too. None of these people have any connection to Britain. What right does Boris have to hand out citizenship like sweeties? Of course, Boris is keen to import as many extra people as possible, rather less keen to build houses for them. Presumbably, the next step, once Zelensky retreats to Britain, is to elevated him to the House of Lords. Perhaps as a counterweight to Baron Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia.
DJK: "I was angry when I heard this too."
(1) So if ()elensky needs British citizenship, and by implication, a place to bolt - why would he choose Britian? Where at a whim his ( substantial ) assets can now be confiscated ( viz Russian Oligarchs ) who are currently the focus of this type of junta theivery. When he'd be a lot more comfortable in one of his US mansions?
(2) Tends to give the lie to the C@W editorial line that ()elensky's fascist forces have the upper hand.
(3) DJK: "What right does Boris have to hand out citizenship like sweeties? "
Precident! They've ( the British government ) have been doing it for about 40 years. Any Tom Dick or Abdul can wash up on these shores and claim British Nationality.
British nationality must be one of the most devalued in Europe, after German or Franch, Dutch or Italian.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61272203
BBC reporting on how other countries view the conflict.
The most surprising thing is that this has only been a story today. Not 8 weeks ago. The one narrative, we all onside for Ukraine, was very much the modern BBC at work.. Impartiality isn’t very important to the broadcaster anymore.
Ted said...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61272203
BBC reporting on how other countries view the conflict.
The most surprising thing is that this has only been a story today. Not 8 weeks ago. The one narrative, we all onside for Ukraine, was very much the modern BBC at work.. Impartiality isn’t very important to the broadcaster anymore.
6:22 pm
====================================================
I must note that nobody HAS to listen to/read/watch BBC news and current affairs. It's years since we have; we junked the TV way back, and the only BBC radio I listen to is sport and R3, though that is being dumbed down at a rate of knots.
I do occasionally turn on Today, if only to remind me why I turn it off. It always works. Perhaps the tipping point was then Women's Hour became Transgender Hour some years ago now.
Enough. Just ignore the BBC
I turned R4 off when EVERY hour became Woman's Hour.
Now it's gone full circle and men have got it back ???
I may return.
This trans thing is pure genius by WHMs - which, of course, was the whole thrust of Dave Chappelle's controversial yet brilliantly observed (and *deliberately* misunderstood) stand-up.
Just what kind of democracy does Ukraine think it's fighting to join ???
@Ted How astonishing! Perhaps the BBC has been infiltrated by a disinformation specialist.
Post a Comment