Current Affairs Ukraine

[Mrk]

I think you are right. I strongly suspect Russia aren't certain that they could get much past the US defence systems so who are they going to terrorise with threats?

Let's ask Medvedev ...

Actually I suspect most of western amd central Europe is more at risk just because of proximity. The only place likely to have a nuclear weapon hit it is Ukraine and I think that's unlikely. A nuclear incident however is another question, especially if you can't clearly point out which side caused it which may well sum up Zaporizhzhia perfectly. Of it goes up it would still be occupied by Russia and you can bet your bottom rouble that impartial investigation would not be possible.

A nuclear incident in Ukraine would be an utter disaster for Russia though - it would be an act of extraordinary self-harm for absolutely zero gain if they were to instigate such a thing.

 

[Yarrgh]

A nuclear incident in Ukraine would be an utter disaster for Russia though - it would be an act of extraordinary self-harm for absolutely zero gain if they were to instigate such a thing.

If there is currently country more engaged in self-harm and destroying its international standing than Russia is, then I'd be shocked.

 

[tsubaki]

Ok

View attachment 210610

er - just to rebuild Ukraine is going to cost more than $350 billion, and that was an estimate by the World Bank in September 2022 so its probably quite a bit more than that now. Add to that all the financial, military and humanitarian aid that are being given to support the country which is approaching 150 billion euro. We are pretty well committed to keeping that going for as long as necessary, at least according to repeated statements by political leaders.

Increased energy, food and other costs have resulted in tens of billions more being spent just by the UK than we would have if the war had never happened.
Similar impacts have been seen across the EU, and to a limited extent across the rest of the world. Most other countries (not us, for some ungodly reason) are ramping up defence spending and investing in increased defence industrial capacity as well. We've all seen and felt the impact of increased inflation, and this has resulted in more social upheaval and some political changes already.

All of that - that we'd support Ukraine in its fight, suffer increased costs and inflation as the result of losing easy access to the things Russia used to sell us, we would have to focus at home rather than across the world and that our populations who were already indebted would suffer from a rise in costs and interest rates and want political change to stop that - was fairly predictable prior to the start of the war so I really wonder why it is so hard to believe that doing all of that might have been things he actually wanted to achieve by going to war.

 

[tsubaki]

I don't know Tubes, I don't think this is how Putin probably envisioned it going

we don't know what he envisioned doing though; that is the point

 

[PeregrineT]

Not sure about any of that tbh.

Obviously we the public don't know the truth of the size of their army, their losses, ammo consumption or anything else but they have been able to throw a lot of materiel into this war. The most reasonable OS account (Oryx) has counted nearly 2000 tanks lost and thousands more other vehicles too; they've largely destroyed at least two cities with artillery. They had prior to this war an awful lot of stuff and have killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians so calling them a paper tiger is quite a bit wide of the mark - the Ukrainians have had to fight magnificently to preserve their country up to this point.

The crossroads for Russia now is whether they go all in, with all that entails for their society and economy or try to pause this and go back to a strategy (putting splits in the West) that was working beforehand and use the time to rebuild some of what has been consumed.

If that werent the case, theres no way Prigozhin would have derisively called Putin "happy grandpa" and that he might be a "complete ass****". And I think almost all at this point agree that Russia is much weaker than it has been threatening to be.

 

[BNJ1878]

er - just to rebuild Ukraine is going to cost more than $350 billion, and that was an estimate by the World Bank in September 2022 so its probably quite a bit more than that now. Add to that all the financial, military and humanitarian aid that are being given to support the country which is approaching 150 billion euro. We are pretty well committed to keeping that going for as long as necessary, at least according to repeated statements by political leaders.

Increased energy, food and other costs have resulted in tens of billions more being spent just by the UK than we would have if the war had never happened.
Similar impacts have been seen across the EU, and to a limited extent across the rest of the world. Most other countries (not us, for some ungodly reason) are ramping up defence spending and investing in increased defence industrial capacity as well. We've all seen and felt the impact of increased inflation, and this has resulted in more social upheaval and some political changes already.

All of that - that we'd support Ukraine in its fight, suffer increased costs and inflation as the result of losing easy access to the things Russia used to sell us, we would have to focus at home rather than across the world and that our populations who were already indebted would suffer from a rise in costs and interest rates and want political change to stop that - was fairly predictable prior to the start of the war so I really wonder why it is so hard to believe that doing all of that might have been things he actually wanted to achieve by going to war.

Not reading all that.

But thanks

 

[tsubaki]

If that werent the case, theres no way Prigozhin would have derisively called Putin "happy grandpa" and that he might be a "complete ass****". And I think almost all at this point agree that Russia is much weaker than it has been threatening to be.

some people have had a lot of latitude to critique the war - Girkin being the most obvious - and not many consequences have been paid for it

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

some people have had a lot of latitude to critique the war - Girkin being the most obvious - and not many consequences have been paid for it

Honestly, anyone trying to pretend this is how pootin wanted/expected this to pan out is quite simply taking the pi55

 

[PhilM]

Ffs
I wish we’d keep it hush about these things. If/when pootin goes full rogue, we’re his number one target imo

Part of the declaration is ensuring that Russia knows of Britain's insistence that these weapons will not be used to attack targets in Russia.

 

[BornBlue76]

If there is currently country more engaged in self-harm and destroying its international standing than Russia is, then I'd be shocked.

South Africa is doing it best to keep up

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Part of the declaration is ensuring that Russia knows of Britain's insistence that these weapons will not be used to attack targets in Russia.

Despite the weapons in question having a particularly long range ? I mean if they strike areas that Russia classes as theirs, have we over stepped the mark? Perhaps occupied territories are deemed legit targets?!

 

[Lobster Johnson]

All of that - that we'd support Ukraine in its fight, suffer increased costs and inflation as the result of losing easy access to the things Russia used to sell us, we would have to focus at home rather than across the world and that our populations who were already indebted would suffer from a rise in costs and interest rates and want political change to stop that - was fairly predictable prior to the start of the war so I really wonder why it is so hard to believe that doing all of that might have been things he actually wanted to achieve by going to war.

That seems a pretty nebulous trade-off for bringing NATO even closer to his border and killing tens of thousands of his armed forces. He could have achieved most of that by shutting off the gas without the need for an expensive war.

 

[PhilM]

Despite the weapons in question having a particularly long range ? I mean if they strike areas that Russia classes as theirs, have we over stepped the mark? Perhaps occupied territories are deemed legit targets?!

The long-range aspect will be utilised more to protect their air assets, combined with its accuracy. They'll be safe in western Ukraine when they deploy them...

... meaning they'll be safe from Russia air defence and any encroaching Russian aircraft, all while still putting the warhead on the target. The Russians won't like it.

The use of the weapons on Crimea, Russian territory or anything like that is a no-no; Eastern Ukraine, that'll be okay.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

The long-range aspect will be utilised more to protect their air assets, combined with its accuracy. They'll be safe in western Ukraine when they deploy them...

... meaning they'll be safe from Russia air defence and any encroaching Russian aircraft, all while still putting the warhead on the target. The Russians won't like it.

The use of the weapons on Crimea, Russian territory or anything like that is a no-no; Eastern Ukraine, that'll be okay.

Phew!
I hoped that would be the case

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

South Africa is doing it best to keep up

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla at centre of Russian Twitter plan, researchers say

The Centre for Information Resilience alleges Jacob Zuma’s daughter was at the forefront of Russia’s drive to sway public opinion in SA and beyond

www.businesslive.co.za