DiegoDiego Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 I only ask because, for the rest of the world, the best outcome is peace ASAPIs it though? what's the long term game for NATO countries here? Continue shovelling indefinitely expensive resources into a war we aren't involved in?We are involved though. Being able to weaken your enemies without expending any of of your own personnel is close to the ideal scenario for the MoD, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 The aim should be to massively disincentivise Russia from invading its neighbours and trying to reclaim its Empire. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said: We are involved though. Being able to weaken your enemies without expending any of of your own personnel is close to the ideal scenario for the MoD, no? Not if we are shovelling our arsenal into "weakening our enemies" it isn't. Besides, Russia were not exactly an active threat to the UK prior to them invading Ukraine. "Enemy" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 6 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: To weaken Russian military powers so they are left with [little more than] nuclear weapons. Is that a good idea, though? For them to be left with little option other than pressing the big red button if "the Middle East, Africa and the various Stans" fancy a wee opportunistic pop back at a weakened Russia? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 Not if we are shovelling our arsenal into "weakening our enemies" it isn't. Besides, Russia were not exactly an active threat to the UK prior to them invading Ukraine. "Enemy" doing a lot of heavy lifting there.They were, and still are, a threat to NATO members whom we are duty bound to defend in an active sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 15 hours ago, dorlomin said: Bit of basic economics. Heavy on details so I will let those wanting to skip past do so with ease. Hide contents How does an economy add value and move up the value chain? How does an economy create economic activity and then use or distribute that economic activity. Core to our world but rarely discussed, we think of economies as a set of statistics and some heuristics ab out "fairness" or "competitiveness". Primary produce is digging something out the ground or farming it. Secondary is turning that into something useful like a plastic chair or an iphone. Tertiary is the financing, marketing and other activities. The labour value or amount of value that workers are worth inputting into production tends to go up exponentially as you go up the production value chain. So its easy to get someone who can hack away with a pick axe or a drill. Its harder to train someone to build an iphone component and skilled marketing requires skilled people with a lot of insight who cost a lot of money. This is grossly simplified but kind of works as a basic model. The get very high value labour inputs to some primary production like Dutch who have very high end farming. So its not rock solid, but its indicative. The UK has some primary production in things like agriculture and oil and gas, some secondary such as jet engines, computer chip design and so on and lots of tertiary like organising the financing of a significant part of the global economy. Russia has a very large primary production sector that is heavily reliant on intellectual property from Western companies. It has some secondary but no real global footprint and bugger all tertiary globally. They ended the Cold War with a high skilled work force but not really able to compete globally. The Japanese built better radios, the Germans better cars etc. Their leaders did not really try to develop the human capital and instead kept getting rich with primary produce. Here in Britain our economy is unfair, its unbalanced but its globally competitive at the top drawer. We build jet engines for the worlds airliners, we design computer chips for smart phones, we finance and market products. We are on a par with the Germans, US, Japan and over very top tier countries in terms of capacity to generate very high value activity. I am not endorsing our current economic set up vs what it should be, just comparing to those on the long term decline. Our wealth ultimately rests on the creativity and intelligence of the people from our schools, our universities and our willingness to embrace immigration. Not Russia. We imposed sanctions Russia because direct military confrontation would crush their army and risk them going nuclear. The cost the Ukrainian people are bearing, the costs that will be imposed on the worlds poor from food inflation is largely down to our decision not to end this quickly and risk the worst possible outcome. Say the word, unleash the full US air force and see how quick this all ends, but at what risk? The sanctions on Russia are aimed at cutting of their access to the global markets for higher end products. So step by step their economy will start to unravel as they cannot replace German microchips for cars, or Japanese specialist glues for something like fridges they produce locally. The primary produce sector of their economy is seeing more money come in from higher prices. But they have seen a 44% drop in imports. They are being driven back to Soviet era scarcity in terms of luxury goods. Their economy is headed to oblivion. Globally we will experience inflation in basics like wheat and energy. We are in a war where we are trying to avoid creating panic in mad c***s with nuclear bombs who have control over about 30% of the worlds wheat exports. This is a very ugly situation and we all need to understand this. The counter options are just let Putin take what he wants where he wants when he wants. Or deal with the complexities of a sociopathic leadership trying to bombard a country into agreeing it does not exist and starve people in the world until we are so sick of the sight of their plight Putin gets to chose which countries do and do not exist. The easy option is unleash the USAF and see how it all falls. Every other option will contain emotionally heart wrenching choices. We are fighting sociopathic gangsters with a nuclear arsenal and a significant portion of the worlds food exports. Some seem gleeful at this. f**k those c***s till their corpses rot. Quote They are being driven back to Soviet era scarcity in terms of luxury goods. That scarcity in luxury goods having famously rolled back expansion in the Soviet era, between 1939 and 1979. Quote starve people in the world until we are so sick of the sight of their plight Putin gets to chose which countries do and do not exist. Well no. The responsibility for that lies jointly with the West for lolloping into look-good sanctions without thinking about the full consequences, as well as Putin's regime for its supreme act of folly. The supply issue is now inextricably linked to the sanctions issue. If the West wants give in one area, it's going to have trade some of its sanctions in return. Or it can keep up its foot-stomping tantrum; whichever it thinks will work better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 49 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Is that a good idea, though? For them to be left with little option other than pressing the big red button if "the Middle East, Africa and the various Stans" fancy a wee opportunistic pop back at a weakened Russia? They'll not be having a pop it will weaken their political influence. Ultimately they will be hoping in the longer term Putin getting ousted. I'm pretty sure Russia has a no first use policy "that they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said: 1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said: Not if we are shovelling our arsenal into "weakening our enemies" it isn't. Besides, Russia were not exactly an active threat to the UK prior to them invading Ukraine. "Enemy" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. They were, and still are, a threat to NATO members whom we are duty bound to defend in an active sense. When, since the end of the Cold War, have Russia given any indication they would attack any NATO member? Both sides having huge nuclear arsenals have assured they are no more a threat to us than we are to them. Edited May 27, 2022 by Todd_is_God 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said: When, since the end of the Cold War, have Russia given any indication they would attack any NATO member? Both sides having huge nucleae arsenals have assured they are no more a threat to us than we are to them. They've threatened Estonia and Latvia plenty times, including launching cyber attacks on their Government infrastructure and banking sectors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 12 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: They'll not be having a pop it will weaken their political influence. Ultimately they will be hoping in the longer term Putin getting ousted. I'm pretty sure Russia has a no first use policy "that they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies." Russia does not have a "No first use" policy, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first to defend themselves or an ally. How, then, is a goal of reducing their military capability to the likes of "a bucket, spade and nuclear weapons" a good idea? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 Dormolin copy and pasting absolute drivel from Reddit has made this thread so much better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 26 minutes ago, Detournement said: Dormolin copy and pasting absolute drivel from Reddit has made this thread so much better. You balance it up with stuff even Sputnik wouldn't publish tbf. On 20/04/2022 at 08:23, Detournement said: I think the 8 year war in Donbass, persecution of Russian speakers, American funded military biolabs, the increasingly Nazi character of the Ukranian state, the refusal to implement the Minsk agreements and the lack of progress in security negotiations justify the war. It's similar to Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1978. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 When, since the end of the Cold War, have Russia given any indication they would attack any NATO member?As Mr Bairn says, they've made plenty of threats, cyber attacks and let's not forget, assassinations on our territory. Recent they've been launching attacks within walking distance of NATO members.If you don't think Russia is a legitimate threat then you might as well disband the military and give footballers fighter jets' wages. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 39 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Russia does not have a "No first use" policy, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first to defend themselves or an ally. How, then, is a goal of reducing their military capability to the likes of "a bucket, spade and nuclear weapons" a good idea? Your right, they changed the policy recently but do still have a no first use policy with China. By having just nukes it staves of any possible threat of anyone invading Russia and crippling their conventional forces it puts a stop to any expansion or reclaiming of the old empire by Putin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 Hungary have declared a state of emergency. Probably worried Putin loses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 Lots of talk that Ukraine are about to withdraw from the remaining Severodonetsk area. On one level it makes sense to withdraw to better defensive positions but on the other they are ceding territory it will be hard to win back. There are some videos coming out of captured Ukrainian troops in Lyman, Ukraine will be keen to avoid too many being taken prisoner. There are also clips of fully equipped Ukrainians withdrawing from the city and blowing the bridge. The unknowns of the war are really the ability of each side to continue the fight. Russia initially tried to push down from Izyum but were held off but have had more success in the Popansa area. They are still going relatively slowly though and the lines seem stable in other areas. It could be that the Popansa breakthrough will lead to a rapid advance by Russia and local collapse by Ukraine. It could also end up a smaller advance, target of counter attacks and eventually counter offensives. The level of casualties by Ukraine is an unknown but it seems likely to be high. Zelensky said the other day that they were losing 50-100 soldiers a day in the Donbas, that's a high level. It seems likely that the rates of casualties among Russian forces has also dropped, although there are probably a number factors behind that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 9 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: Are Ukraine paying for all these weapons that NATO countries are supplying them? I only ask because, for the rest of the world, the best outcome is peace ASAP, but there is surely little reason for Ukraine to seek a peace deal with Russia so long as they have free, unlimited access to modern weapons. I assumed that the initial wave of sanctions and weapon shipments were designed to try and snuff the war out quickly. But, with that having failed, what's the long term game for NATO countries here? Continue shovelling indefinitely expensive resources into a war we aren't involved in? I think there is a version of lend-lease on the go, certainly with US supplies who have budgeted for billions to Ukraine but then there are doubts of the effectiveness of some of the weapons sent such as the Javelin and N-Laws when the main disparity is in MLRS and artillery. Also a lot of NATO members have contributed effectively nothing. France and Germany the most notable. They have also failed to pushback to Putin for many years as well as the UK and USA, Russia seems to be on target for its objectives of the Donbas and effectively cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea. That final point may come down to if Odessa is taken. I don't think they would actually want anymore after stopping sea trade and destroying a lot of the industry in the East of the country. How Ukraine can pay back any bills to the US after that I am unsure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 Dormolin copy and pasting absolute drivel from Reddit has made this thread so much better. Says the King of Drivel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 28, 2022 Share Posted May 28, 2022 Big once 100% confirmed: but has to be frustrating for the Ukrainians that these shipments only happen incremently. If these had been supplied at the very outset what difference would that have made in Kherson and Mariupol? 500 km isn't enough range to hit Moscow from Kharkiv but it potentially brings all of Crimea in range including the Kerch bridge. Hence the warnings from Lavrov. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.