Russia

[skintsaint]

Zelensky : So Ben, when is Zoolander 3 coming out?

[buctootim]

[badgerx16]

Here's one for Alexei, borrowed from Twitter;

"This map shows how little territory has changed hands in Ukraine over the past month....."

Purple is Russian gains, yellow is Ukrainian.

[skintsaint]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61891462

Doesn't surprise me, they are using very old equipment and sure make a good buffer for the Russia forces.

[badgerx16]

A group of Russian school teachers showing a placard reading "One people, One nation, One leader"......

 

 

( Where have I heard that before ? )

[skintsaint]

The solitary guy ( i think) at the back not looking too happy, next to go to the front line I expect.😄

[whelk]

Just caught tail end of Pointless and pretty sure the couple said if they won they were going spend their prize money by going to Russia.

[skintsaint]

Real mixed bag of nationalities..

 

 

[AlexLaw76]

There is a view across the pond (albeit probably insignificant, if even true) that if a small NATO country is causing trouble for Russia, just kick them out of NATO.

https://min.news/en/news/ed9648f088965daff92b79ffe551f2b4.html

Edited 25 June, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

There is a view across the pond (albeit probably insignificant) that if a small NATO country is causing trouble for Russia, just kick them out of NATO.

https://min.news/en/news/ed9648f088965daff92b79ffe551f2b4.html

So 1 US General, despite the sensationalist headline, speaks against US policy;

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-says-nato-commitment-to-lithuania-ironclad-after-russia-threat/

 

The irony being that Kaliningrad has only been part of Russia since 1946 when Stalin ordered the deportation of the remaining German population of Konigsberg.

Edited 25 June, 2022 by badgerx16

[kyle04]

Belarussian army apparently forming defensive positions near the border with Lithuania, I don't think Russia need another battle front right now though. Russia not too popular with the former SSR's are they? Only certain goods covered by sanctions will be blocked though, fair enough given what Russia are doing with the Ukrainian grain stocks.

[AlexLaw76]

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

In which case I wake up and find I'm 22 years old.

[whelk]

I’m buying Apple shares 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No to mention double digit inflation 

[egg]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

No to mention double digit inflation 

 

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The Message by Grandmaster Flash popped up my Spotify earlier today...1982...these lyrics, amongst others very apt..."double-digit inflation. Can't take the train to the job, there's a strike at the station".

[badgerx16]

Russian "precision weapons carrying out a targeted strike" take out a packed shopping centre with up to 1000 people inside.

Sending a message to the G7 ?

Edited 27 June, 2022 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Russian "precision weapons" take out a packed shopping centre with up to 1000 people inside.

Sending a message to the G7 ?

Something has to end/reduce this soon.  Either a ceasefire (with Ukraine conceding something), or Putins demise!

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Something has to end/reduce this soon.  Either a ceasefire (with Ukraine conceding something), or Putins demise!

It's going to be his demise. He has royally fucked Russia. It's not the fact of the war it's the utter cack handed management of it - alienating the softer more Russia friendly European allies by targetting shopping malls and apartment blocks and pissing around with gas supplies just enough to irritate people but not have a strategic effect. 

[Millbrook Saint]

9 minutes ago, buctootim said:

It's going to be his demise. He has royally fucked Russia. It's not the fact of the war it's the utter cack handed management of it - alienating the softer more Russia friendly European allies by targetting shopping malls and apartment blocks and pissing around with gas supplies just enough to irritate people but not have a strategic effect. 

I'm not convinced the war will end with his demise, I'm sure there are other gangsters in the background equally as bad if not worse just waiting to take the reigns, I can imagine the only people able to pull off getting rid of him aren't going to be particularly moderate

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I'm not convinced the war will end with his demise, I'm sure there are other gangsters in the background equally as bad if not worse just waiting to take the reigns, I can imagine the only people able to pull off getting rid of him aren't going to be particularly moderate

But they would be able to pull out and declare themselves as the saviours of Russia’s economy, or some guff along those lines.

[buctootim]

9 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I'm not convinced the war will end with his demise, I'm sure there are other gangsters in the background equally as bad if not worse just waiting to take the reigns, I can imagine the only people able to pull off getting rid of him aren't going to be particularly moderate

I'm not expecting anybody apart from a gangster to take over. But it will likely be a rational one interested in money and power, which is fine. Just like Putin used to be before he got bored with money, houses, boats and hunting. Then he started killing people to get his jollies, more blatant and brazen every time when no-one stopped him.  

Edited 27 June, 2022 by buctootim

[Millbrook Saint]

Well I just hope you're both right, depends how rational they are and whether they'll be willing to spin withdrawing all their troops from the East of Ukraine as a victory because I can't see Ukraine surrendering and why should they, we wouldn't.

[egg]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

It's going to be his demise. He has royally fucked Russia. It's not the fact of the war it's the utter cack handed management of it - alienating the softer more Russia friendly European allies by targetting shopping malls and apartment blocks and pissing around with gas supplies just enough to irritate people but not have a strategic effect. 

I don't see his demise sadly. People expected the sanctions to lead to some dramatic downfall but it hasn't happened, and won't, as long as there's a market for Russian gas and oil (especially at sky high prices). It'd take a coup of some sort and unless that's the army (who are a little distracted), I don't see where it'll come from. As for Russia being fucked, let's be honest, we're not far behind economically speaking. 

Edited 27 June, 2022 by egg

[badgerx16]

Russian policy in Ukraine, summed upin The Narcissist's Prayer by Dayna Craig;

"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it"

[kyle04]

I think, given the terror-by-missile tactics the Russians are employing, that if the west is sincere in it's commitment to defending Ukraine they have to send an arsenal of air defense systems straight away (Patriot's, whatever). Russia are now firing Iskander missiles from inside Belarus, and using their airspace to conduct air strikes. This has to be blunted and while Ukraine have shot down a number of rockets too many are getting through.

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

I think, given the terror-by-missile tactics the Russians are employing, that if the west is sincere in it's commitment to defending Ukraine they have to send an arsenal of air defense systems straight away (Patriot's, whatever). Russia are now firing Iskander missiles from inside Belarus, and using their airspace to conduct air strikes. This has to be blunted and while Ukraine have shot down a number of rockets too many are getting through.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/08/statement-from-the-president-on-delivery-of-air-defense-systems-to-ukraine/

[Whitey Grandad]

50 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't see his demise sadly. People expected the sanctions to lead to some dramatic downfall but it hasn't happened, and won't, as long as there's a market for Russian gas and oil (especially at sky high prices). It'd take a coup of some sort and unless that's the army (who are a little distracted), I don't see where it'll come from. As for Russia being fucked, let's be honest, we're not far behind economically speaking. 

Russia has just defaulted on its foreign loans for the first time since 1998 or for over a hundred years, take your pick.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Russia has just defaulted on its foreign loans for the first time since 1998 or for over a hundred years, take your pick.

Their response: we won't give a shit. Sure, their international reputation is shot, but as long as they have oil and gas, they'll always have a solid income stream. People believing he'll fall on his sword are hopeful, but there's no sign of it in reality.

[Lighthouse]

43 minutes ago, egg said:

Their response: we won't give a shit. Sure, their international reputation is shot, but as long as they have oil and gas, they'll always have a solid income stream. People believing he'll fall on his sword are hopeful, but there's no sign of it in reality.

You can’t just ‘have oil’ and everything is fine. For a start the amount they produce per capita is relatively low. Certainly nowhere near any of the big Gulf producers, or even Canada and Norway. Secondly they are subject to big sanctions and just don’t have anywhere near a diverse enough economy to stand up alone. They just don’t produce the things they need in house.

Take aviation as an example, their soviet era Tupolevs and Ilyushins are all gone and they rely almost entirely on western aircraft, which they now can’t acquire or get parts for. As a result they’re just going to have to keep cannibalising planes until they run out. The only thing they do make is a small regional jet and even that has engines built in France.

[kyle04]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Russia has just defaulted on its foreign loans for the first time since 1998 or for over a hundred years, take your pick.

Their line is we've got the money, but only in rubles. Could be something to do with the fact that Russian banks spunked all their foreign currency on buying rubles to keep it afloat (and flying high apparently).

[AlexLaw76]

still no where near enough and doubt it will happen without clever accounting!

our forces are disgracefully hollow and whilst we handover billions of £ with of “stuff” to Ukraine (some will be obsolete of course), I doubt it will be back-filled in a timely fashion.

The Army’s front line is 13500 soldiers (and shrinking) - that is it!

throwing significant money at Defence is never ever a vote winner, sadly. Not that the MoD (like many Govt depts) have a good record of spending large sums efficiently!

[Jimmy_D]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

still no where near enough and doubt it will happen without clever accounting!

our forces are disgracefully hollow and whilst we handover billions of £ with of “stuff” to Ukraine (some will be obsolete of course), I doubt it will be back-filled in a timely fashion.

The Army’s front line is 13500 soldiers (and shrinking) - that is it!

throwing significant money at Defence is never ever a vote winner, sadly. Not that the MoD (like many Govt depts) have a good record of spending large sums efficiently!

Our donations to Ukraine so far are around 3% of our military budget, and less than the increase in military spending announced last year. Much of what has been sent has already been replaced, some due to being obsolete, some old enough that it would have required being disposed of had it not been used, some as a result of the increased production in response to Ukraine.

We’re not anywhere near sending our most capable stuff, and yet it’s been used to hold back what, just a few weeks ago, would have been seen as one of the biggest military threats we could have faced. We’re already using battlefield information from Ukraine to identify what’s been most effective and adjust.

The direct quotes from Stoltenberg here seem to disagree with your assessment on the UK’s capabilities.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1630833/british-troops-ukraine-russia-putin-military/amp

Do you really think a leaked report of a military leader wanting increased military spending, while there is a war actively taking place in Europe, indicates we didn’t have a capable military before?

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

still no where near enough and doubt it will happen without clever accounting!

our forces are disgracefully hollow and whilst we handover billions of £ with of “stuff” to Ukraine (some will be obsolete of course), I doubt it will be back-filled in a timely fashion.

The Army’s front line is 13500 soldiers (and shrinking) - that is it!

throwing significant money at Defence is never ever a vote winner, sadly. Not that the MoD (like many Govt depts) have a good record of spending large sums efficiently!

You sound like you disapprove about our support for the Ukrainian war effort? Perhaps their need is currently greater than ours? As for our defensive capabilities, surely as long as we keep our commitment we are fine? After all, all that money spent on Trident isn’t wasted is it? Here’s a thought for you, channel the money from nuclear weapons that clearly are not working as a deterrent (Falklands, various European conflicts) into more practical defence measures.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

throwing significant money at Defence is never ever a vote winner, sadly.

I doubt many people will vote for a smaller army in the current circumstances - I expect everyone (except maybe the Greens) will want to reverse the Conservatives' recent cuts.

[Lighthouse]

31 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Here’s a thought for you, channel the money from nuclear weapons that clearly are not working as a deterrent (Falklands, various European conflicts)

How many nuclear capable countries have actually been invaded or attacked? Not including remote archipelagos, 8,000 miles away.

[Jimmy_D]

15 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

How many nuclear capable countries have actually been invaded or attacked? Not including remote archipelagos, 8,000 miles away.

Best example of that at the moment are Russia themselves. Their conventional military has been shown to be far weaker than anyone thought, and they’ve got a truly evil leader that’s treating the Geneva Convention as a checklist, but even the ghost of a suggestion of any sort of counter invasion is so insane that no-one would consider it viable for an instant.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

How many nuclear capable countries have actually been invaded or attacked? Not including remote archipelagos, 8,000 miles away.

It is still UK sovereign territory. We were told at the time it was like Argentina invading the Isle of Wight. How many times have we had terrorist attacks in mainland Britain? Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain get along without them just fine don’t they?

[Lighthouse]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is still UK sovereign territory. We were told at the time it was like Argentina invading the Isle of Wight. How many times have we had terrorist attacks in mainland Britain? Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain get along without them just fine don’t they?

Firstly, whilst we clearly had the capability, we’re clearly not going to nuke Buenos Aires for the sake of a few penguins. Secondly, Islam isn’t a country, you can’t just nuke a concept and if you could the people carrying out those attacks would welcome mutual destruction. Thirdly, Putin would be a heck of a lot more brave himself in all of this if NATO didn’t have their own nuclear weapons.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

It is still UK sovereign territory. We were told at the time it was like Argentina invading the Isle of Wight. How many times have we had terrorist attacks in mainland Britain? Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain get along without them just fine don’t they?

Should the Ukrainians be firing bullets at their fellow man? Maybe shoot some flowers over?  I don’t see how anyone would want us to get rid of our nukes unless they were mentally ill. 

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Firstly, whilst we clearly had the capability, we’re clearly not going to nuke Buenos Aires for the sake of a few penguins. Secondly, Islam isn’t a country, you can’t just nuke a concept and if you could the people carrying out those attacks would welcome mutual destruction. Thirdly, Putin would be a heck of a lot more brave himself in all of this if NATO didn’t have their own nuclear weapons.

More importantly, that some of them are weapons directly under European control.

[kyle04]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain get along without them just fine don’t they?

I'm sure they'd feel at lot less at ease now if there wasn't a nuclear capability in Europe (France & UK) together with the NATO umbrella.  Europe can't keep relying on the US to hold their hand, especially given the insanity Russia are now engaged in, and that goes for conventional military capability as well.

Nuclear doctrines for each country are quite specific, and do not allow them to be used "tactically" on a battlefield so to speak.

 

[badgerx16]

Just now, whelk said:

Should the Ukrainians be firing bullets at their fellow man? Maybe shoot some flowers over?  I don’t see how anyone would want us to get rid of our nukes unless they were mentally ill. 

There is a line of argument for getting rid of the UK nuclear arsenal, but it depends in part on trusting the US to be willing to commit theirs to a European conflict. It would be nice if there were no such weapons anywhere in the World, but that particular genie cannot be put back in it's bottle.

[kyle04]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

There is a line of argument for getting rid of the UK nuclear arsenal, but it depends in part on trusting the US to be willing to commit theirs to a European conflict. It would be nice if there were no such weapons anywhere in the World, but that particular genie cannot be put back in it's bottle.

Interesting documentary last night focusing on Macmillans negotiations with JFK in 1962 to obtain an independent nuclear deterant from the US (Polaris at the time). The Americans were very unwilling to play ball and Macmillan's political credibility was on the line. But they made a deal in the end , Uk would build the subs and missiles, US would provide the warheads and allow UK to use them independently. The US seems a little unstable right now, if Trump gets back in power who knows what may happen.

[egg]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Should the Ukrainians be firing bullets at their fellow man? Maybe shoot some flowers over?  I don’t see how anyone would want us to get rid of our nukes unless they were mentally ill. 

Strongly put, but getting rid of them would be crazy. They're the strongest weapon, thus the strongest deterrent. 

[kyle04]

 

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

Strongly put, but getting rid of them would be crazy. They're the strongest weapon, thus the strongest deterrent. 

The nihilist in me does want to say bomb one more shopping mall you cunt and we will be the crazy ones and send a nuke over. Call the cunts bluff rather than poodle Macron pleading with him to stop which is nauseating.

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

There is a line of argument for getting rid of the UK nuclear arsenal, but it depends in part on trusting the US to be willing to commit theirs to a European conflict. It would be nice if there were no such weapons anywhere in the World, but that particular genie cannot be put back in it's bottle.

What line of argument? Does anyone think Ukraine would be in the same situation now if they hadn’t given up their nukes in exchange for paper guarantees from Russia, US and UK?

Edited 28 June, 2022 by buctootim

[cloggy saint]

It's a tragedy that nuclear weapons were ever created. If they didn't exist then NATO could have reduced Russia to rubble by now, and not a moment too soon.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, cloggy saint said:

It's a tragedy that nuclear weapons were ever created. If they didn't exist then NATO could have reduced Russia to rubble by now, and not a moment too soon.

One irony is that using nukes would probably be the only way to bring Russia to its knees, but them having them means we can't do much more than we're doing now. Another irony is that if Ukraine still had them, this invasion would never have happened. 

Edited 28 June, 2022 by egg