Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[foreveryoung]

 

[sne]

Shipping cost will be eye watering

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

 

Only slightly stained with Russian blood. Pet and smoke free home.

[TDR V2]

It would never fit on me drive, and the missus is shite at parking 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Also we don't like off the shelf foreign stuff which you could buy fairly cheap, we always want our own tech in it that adds lots of cost.

That’s not really the case, for costs. The US kit has a headline cost of x, which in some cases may seem cheaper than a uk equivalent, but what the USA does is then charge an absolute fortune for spares, servicing, tech support…and they don’t provide the IPR to allow the uk to do the work ourselves. The lifetime costs are much higher.

The other angle is of course jobs, apprentice training, high skills, sustaining uk engineering companies, exports (and profit and taxes), spin offs into civil programmes, and a whole ton of other stuff. I mean the defence industry is never going to be popular, but it is necessary and compared to the US its way more efficient and has to be.

[Follyfoot]

20 minutes ago, Zatman said:

In a late twist, Zelensky has shockingly been replaced by Wladimir Klitschko for this fight

Would rather it be Vitali but Wlad will do

[Awol]

I wonder whether he’ll be played by Phil Collins or Grant Mitchell in the Airport Too Far? 

 

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, Cizzler said:

He's not going to go into a NATO country. He's not gone insane, he's not going to invade the USA. They'd get absolutely battered.

It's a terrible tragedy and a humanitarian disaster - but ultimately, we can't risk nuclear war on the sovereignty of Ukraine. I think they need to accept Putin's demands. The loss of innocent life is going to become even more depressing otherwise.  

I didn't say he was going to invade a NATO country or the US, Why you made that up? 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

it's not bollex to say that that is Russia's interpretation

It is. Russia has said they are doing this to overthrow a Nazi, far right government that’s been super mean to Russian speakers in the population. The president is Jewish, in free elections the far right got 1% of the vote. Russia has claimed, falsely that Ukraine was created by Russia around a century and a bit ago. It’s over a thousand years old, as is Russia. Russia has invaded a peaceful, democratic, non NATO, neighbour based on the paranoid mind of a Tyrant who fears the impact of growing disquiet in Russia around the ever more authoritarian turn his presidency has taken. He’s been poisoning, murdering, robbing, imprisoning dissenters, opponents, journalists, ordinary people in order to maintain his kleptocratic hold over the wealth and power. The more that Russia’s neighbours thrive under democracy, the more nervous and paranoid he becomes. It’s got eff all to do with NATO, that’s way down his list. Preserve his status, follow the doctrine of a few of his favourite historians and thinkers, maybe create ( in his mind) a legacy as he is almost 70, now.

If his deputies and Generals and Oligarch chums were free to speak, they’d tell you straight away it’s about Putin and his power and wealth and not NATO.

[Mozzavfc]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

A question on reporting.

We're seeing lots of stories that suggest every Ukrainian man between 16 and 75 is a double hard mother****er with his hands on a rifle, a will to kill, and the desire to fight Russians until his very last breath.

What of the twenty percent of Ukrainians that identify as Russian? Where are those people? What's happening with them?

 

Excluding the ones from Donbass and Crimea which evacuated before the invasion, they are helping fight the Russians

Kharkiv is/was 25% Russian and they are fighting street by street to keep the Ukrainians in control, and are now getting bombarded 24 hours a day because they won't give it up

[Follyfoot]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

I wonder whether he’ll be played by Phil Collins or Grant Mitchell in the Airport Too Far? 

 

Craig Fairbrass

[TDR V2]

11 minutes ago, Awol said:

I wonder whether he’ll be played by Phil Collins or Grant Mitchell in the Airport Too Far? 

 

Larry Hagman

[sne]

18 minutes ago, Awol said:

I wonder whether he’ll be played by Phil Collins or Grant Mitchell in the Airport Too Far? 

 

Tom Holland

[TDR V2]

Jesus these reports on the news are heart breaking, residential areas and schools flattened. 3hr flight from here, frightening

[sidcow]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not really the case, for costs. The US kit has a headline cost of x, which in some cases may seem cheaper than a uk equivalent, but what the USA does is then charge an absolute fortune for spares, servicing, tech support…and they don’t provide the IPR to allow the uk to do the work ourselves. The lifetime costs are much higher.

That's what I meant when I said we don't like to buy off the shelf foreign stuff. I've seen various things about difficulties in getting US IPR, we want full control, not to rely on them. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

A ceasefire will only be agreed if Ukraine agrees to cede Crimea and recognise the Donbas as a new country. 

Though the term has been degraded a lot in recent years, what distinguishes a 'ceasefire' from an 'armistice' or a 'peace treaty' is that it does not necessarily have to involve permanent conditions like recognising new borders or states. It is a temporary cessation of hostilities, which does not need any sort of formal agreement (though sometimes they do come with formal agreements).

A ceasefire is unlikely in this case IMO, just simply because of the sheer volume of Russian troops inside Ukraine at this point. Nevertheless, however remote the possibility, we need to do all we can to encourage the two sides to agree to a temporary cessation so that a] city stores can be resupplied with food and medicine, b] humanitarian corridors can allow the vulnerable to escape to safety, and c] space is opened for diplomacy.

Edited March 3, 2022 by HanoiVillan

[TDR V2]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Though the term has been degraded a lot in recent years, what distinguishes a 'ceasefire' from an 'armistice' or a 'peace treaty' is that it does not necessarily have to involve permanent conditions like recognising new borders or states.

A ceasefire is unlikely in this case IMO, just simply because of the sheer volume of Russian troops inside Ukraine at this point. Nevertheless, however remote the possibility, we need to do all we can to encourage the two sides to agree to a temporary cessation so that a] city stores can be resupplied with food and medicine, b] humanitarian corridors can allow the vulnerable to escape to safety, and c] space is opened for diplomacy.

Every time Putin appears on the news with his speeches and waffle, does he look or sound like a bloke that wants a cease fire or would agree to one. 

Him and that Lavrov bloke are so blinkered they prob believe the bullshit they are coming out with. There's two endings to this and neither involve a cease fire

[OutByEaster?]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

It is. Russia has said they are doing this to overthrow a Nazi, far right government that’s been super mean to Russian speakers in the population. The president is Jewish, in free elections the far right got 1% of the vote. Russia has claimed, falsely that Ukraine was created by Russia around a century and a bit ago. It’s over a thousand years old, as is Russia. Russia has invaded a peaceful, democratic, non NATO, neighbour based on the paranoid mind of a Tyrant who fears the impact of growing disquiet in Russia around the ever more authoritarian turn his presidency has taken. He’s been poisoning, murdering, robbing, imprisoning dissenters, opponents, journalists, ordinary people in order to maintain his kleptocratic hold over the wealth and power. The more that Russia’s neighbours thrive under democracy, the more nervous and paranoid he becomes. It’s got eff all to do with NATO, that’s way down his list. Preserve his status, follow the doctrine of a few of his favourite historians and thinkers, maybe create ( in his mind) a legacy as he is almost 70, now.

If his deputies and Generals and Oligarch chums were free to speak, they’d tell you straight away it’s about Putin and his power and wealth and not NATO.

I agree with lots and lots of this, but I think the NATO thing is wrapped up in it. I think when the 2008 (or 2009?) thing about Ukraine joining NATO was first raised, Putin immediately saw it as a threat to the idea on which his power is based. Putin's power is based on the idea of the strong man that leads a world power with influence and a global presence, his support comes from a certain type of nationalism - the belief that mother Russia is still relevant and important and influential. 

The little prod toward NATO that Ukraine has been encouraged into has undermined that a little at a time, and he has spent a decade railing against it, moaning, threatening, annexing Crimea - in part at least as a way to maintain his image at home as the strong leader of a bold and powerful nation.The last thing he can deal with is parts of the former USSR saying "Hold on, if Ukraine can join NATO and do democracy stuff, then why can't we do the same" or to have people in Russia start to think that they can advance their own ideas and ideals at home.

I don't think he suddenly flipped and decided he must have Ukraine, that taking over territory was the legacy he wanted and the thing that would prove once and for all the might of the Soviet bear - in all honesty, I suspect he'll have had some idea that it was a bad idea, there's a desperation in this. He's complained through courts and through threats and through action in Crimea, he's gathered troops, he's talked about missiles, he's thrown all of his toys up in the air and no one important so much as batted an eyelid - he's like some teenage kid screaming for attention after a perceived sleight who has suddenly exploded into violence and burned the house down. 

I think there's been a certain mischievous encouragement toward getting him that way from the West, I'm sure you wouldn't agree on that, but I think the motivation for the invasion is a defensive action by Putin - defending his grip on the country, defending the idea of a Russia relevant for something other than having nuclear weapons and defending a nationalistic identity he's created to support his own power. He's invaded a nation because he can't back down and he can't back down because his whole grip on power is based on the idea that he's the strongman embodiment of a strong Russia that doesn't really exist. 

I'd agree it's about Putin and his power and wealth, but I think there's a little bit of mischief and people using NATO and Ukraine as a stick with which to poke the bear.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, Talldarkandransome said:

Every time Putin appears on the news with his speeches and waffle, does he look or sound like a bloke that wants a cease fire or would agree to one. 

Him and that Lavrov bloke are so blinkered they prob believe the bullshit they are coming out with. There's two endings to this and neither involve a cease fire

No, which is why I say in the post you quoted that the chances seem very remote. Nevertheless, though it may be forlorn, it's still worth trying. Even a 24 or 48 hour break in fighting could save hundreds or thousands of lives at this point.

[TDR V2]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

No, which is why I say in the post you quoted that the chances seem very remote. Nevertheless, though it may be forlorn, it's still worth trying. Even a 24 or 48 hour break in fighting could save hundreds or thousands of lives at this point.

Sorry, I totally agree we should try for an agreed cease-fire, I just feel there is zero chance of Putin agreeing to it.