Russia v Ukraine

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

It won't open the links (for me).

 

What is he saying? (I presume you watched it).

 

It's a long interview. Ukraine need to reduce the conscription age. If its a football match the Russians are winning 3-2 at half time. Ukraine should have negotiatiated from a position of strength. Plus a lot more 

[Gnasher]

9 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Sum it up for us.

 

It's a long interview. Open link, press translate. 

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Sum it up for us.

 

Press the bottom link (the Ukrainian wriiting) scroll down to bottom left, press translate  

[SasaS]

18 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Press the bottom link (the Ukrainian wriiting) scroll down to bottom left, press translate  

 

It gave me just "something went wrong", will try tomorrow.

[Lee909]

If Biden wants to fund the Ukraine why doesn't he follow the republicans heros plan in the 80s and just get the CIA to import some coke and flood its streets with drugs and use that slush fund to give Ukraine money to buy the weapons. 

 

Or is that only allowed when you are arming right wing death squads in Central America because of Commies

[Ne Moe Imya]

15 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

knock out your #2 enemy's capabilities entirely, it's a bargain.

 

@Ne Moe Imya

 

IMO this will never happen. What scenario can you see where Russia's capabilities are knocked out completely? How?

Even if UKR were to "win" (whatever that means in terms of the line at the border) Russia would still have incredible firepower - a huge military industrial complex to rebuild and China firmly in their camp, and both probably smarting. And still literally next door.

I do think they will continue to get military aid from the US.

 

Maybe "entirely" was too strong, but I think what I'm referring to has more or less already happened, to be honest.

 

Russia had the huge advantage of owning thousands of old, Soviet-built tanks and APCs that they could use for a land war. They have now seen well over half, probably 70% of the usable pre-1990 tanks destroyed, captured, or heavily damaged. They still have a sizable stockpile of them for parts, and obviously they are working triple shifts to build more, but their conventional offensive capacity compared to Jan 2022 is halved, at the very least.

 

That means that we basically only have to worry about them taking a few more cities/districts in Ukraine. There is zero chance they can offer any meaningful non-nuclear threat to a NATO country any more. Maybe the Baltics, but Poland or any of the others are off the table for at least a decade, probably longer. They simply don't have the firepower.

 

And if the US were willing to support Ukraine again with military aid in the form of old tanks/APCs and artillery ammunition, they could reduce that even further.

[SasaS]

Russian casualties update, 1,190 registered KIA in two weeks which is considerably down from previous months which were hitting as many as 1,400 or 1,500 per fortnight. Possibly reflective of slow down in fighting since Avdiivka or less Ukrainian firepower. Or just fewer old obituaries.

 

Total is now 50,471. Actual number probably in the 80k to 110k range (my estimate), with Crimea, without other separatist.

 

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng

[TheHowieLama]

9 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

but their conventional offensive capacity compared to Jan 2022 is halved, at the very least.

 

That means that we basically only have to worry about them taking a few more cities/districts in Ukraine. There is zero chance they can offer any meaningful non-nuclear threat to a NATO country any more. Maybe the Baltics, but Poland or any of the others are off the table for at least a decade, probably longer. They simply don't have the firepower.

 

 

Agree with all this.

[Gnasher]

Article on the alleged peace talks. The king of Ukraine, our own Boris Johnson makes an appearance towards the end. 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine?s=09

 

 

Thread summing up the above.

 

 

On the same article, Cummings giving Johnson a kicking. If he's right and a deal was within reach an awful lot of Ukrainian lives could have been saved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SasaS]

I think Trofimov of WSJ (or is it FT?) wrote a book dealing with negotiations, as far as I recall from an interview, Russian demand of neutrality included Ukraine giving up all foreign military aid and links, not just potential bases or NATO membership, on top of contentious subject of limiting Ukrainian military size.

 

There were also, as stated in this article as well, no indications what happens with occupied territories, and obviously, the key question of security guarantees - that the US (and its allies presumably, like the UK) would go to war with Russia if it decides to continue with the war or initiates new round of hostilities after a ceasefire, which as we can see now, Russians were well aware would never happen, even if the security guarantors actually signed anything (which they wouldn't).

 

So in essence, Ukraine would have agreed that Russia can dictate its foreign policy, size of the military, has a pretext for invasion if it is not happy with how Ukrainians are honouring the agreement (see Minsk which they already used for justifying the invasion), keep the occupied territories whilst Ukraine would depend on fickle Western governments that cannot come up with a plan of long term sustainable logistical support and constantly put various obstacles in front of delivery of various weapons to actually go to war with a nuclear power. Which the said nuclear power has the right to veto anyway, according to some of the drafts.

 

I think Russia was just buying time and trying to see what they can get through other means while they regroup.

 

[Section_31]

The problem for Russia is that it's too corrupt to function. It's like Jenga, there's only so many pieces you can pull out before it all goes to shit (not far off that here, to be fair).

 

There were stories in the early part of the invasion of 'tinned meat' meant for the soldiers actually being dog food, and the trucks and tanks getting stuck because the companies who'd been paid to maintain them - hadn't. 

 

Someone said something similar about the gun attack in Moscow the other week,  that the security services can't predict stuff like that because all their money and efforts are focussed on the likes of poisoning journalists and spreading Twitter disinformation. 

 

It looks like a military and intelligence apparatus but it's probably not one, as we'd recognise it. 

[Gnasher]

Talking of corruption. I've heard Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie's country pile, bought in cash is a thing of wonder. No cost of living crisis there. 

 

 

Meanwhile. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ne Moe Imya]

If Ukraine loses, or is forced into a negotiation where they give up a huge chunk of their territory and sovereignty to Russia, then the inevitable result over the long term is nuclear proliferation and probably a world war.

 

In the early 1990s, Ukraine gave up a nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the UK, the US and Russia. Any budding nuclear nation is going to look at what's happened in Ukraine and think "NATO/the Western powers are fickle, they might honor their promises to defend me, they might not. I need to get nuclear weapons in order to definitively prevent attack from a larger power."

 

The only way to prevent this from being the takeaway message from this whole Ukraine mess is to honor our agreements and supply them with the arms to defend their country. Ukraine can easily win this war with mostly just the leftover weapons that the US is paying to dismantle (plus some artillery ammo and air defence missiles), but Trump and Johnson are preventing that from happening. It's going to end up costing all of us far, far more than we currently understand.

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[SasaS]

7 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

If Ukraine loses, or is forced into a negotiation where they give up a huge chunk of their territory and sovereignty to Russia, then the inevitable result over the long term is nuclear proliferation and probably a world war.

 

In the early 1990s, Ukraine gave up a nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the UK, the US and Russia. Any budding nuclear nation is going to look at what's happened in Ukraine and think "NATO/the Western powers are fickle, they might honor their promises to defend me, they might not. I need to get nuclear weapons in order to definitively prevent attack from a larger power."

 

The only way to prevent this from being the takeaway message from this whole Ukraine mess is to honor our agreements and supply them with the arms to defend their country. Ukraine can easily win this war with mostly just the leftover weapons that the US is paying to dismantle (plus some artillery ammo and air defence missiles), but Trump and Johnson are preventing that from happening. It's going to end up costing all of us far, far more than we currently understand.

 

I have a feeling decision to gradually abandon Ukraine has already been made - it's hard, it's expensive, it's no longer so popular, there are elections to be contested, someone else will deal with the fallout, lets focus on Israel, we need Russia to deal with Iran, lets not make Russia an easy prey to China etc etc etc

 

Some are saying once the assistance clears the House, the floodgates will open, I fear it will just start dripping again or they will focus on delivering stuff prepared six months ago which isn't urgent but is simply in the spreadsheet.

 

it will be just another in the long sequence of myopic decisions which later come back to bite you on the arse.

[Section_31]

Grim this

 

Russian casualties are rising because of their tactics it would seem, essentially making them go 'over the top' so they can flush out enemy positions for artillery, some Enemy at the Gates-style shit.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-soldiers-death-toll-50-000-ukraine-b2530037.html

 

[TheHowieLama]

4 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

 

 

 

I know you are trying to make a point here but given the way GDP and wartime works I am not sure what it is exactly - do you know what the point you are trying to make is?

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

I know you are trying to make a point here but given the way GDP and wartime works I am not sure what it is exactly - do you know what the point you are trying to make is?

 

You being glib again? If so in the words of a lollipop sucking New York detective, don't get cute 

 

 

I was right, others, were wrong. Slap dash sanctions without a coherent strategy or thought rarely work, as was said by some at the time. Even factoring in the increased spending Russia invested on war munitions that's now obvious. I believe the leader of the European Union proclaimed Russia would be on its knees in months. Sanctions helped push up our own energy bills and fuel our cost of living crisis. A lot of sanctions are good, such as the components for Russia to make weapons, others have proven counter productive as many predicted. 

 

Here's how some of American sanctions against China backfired. China are not at war. 

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/how-huawei-s-chipmaker-turned-us-sanctions-into-a-china-success-story-1.2001886.amp.html

 

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

I was right, others, were wrong. Slap dash sanctions without a coherent strategy or thought rarely work,

 

 

This is going to be rough I know but did you read the BBC article you posted? That's not me being glib, it is an honest question.

I say this because I can tell you definitely read the Twitter responses and certainly were fed the headline via social media but the article you posted does not attribute sanctions being ineffective and, small details, like the words in the article, do not really support what you are hoping they do. 

 

[Gnasher]

41 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

This is going to be rough I know but did you read the BBC article you posted? That's not me being glib, it is an honest question.

I say this because I can tell you definitely read the Twitter responses and certainly were fed the headline via social media but the article you posted does not attribute sanctions being ineffective and, small details, like the words in the article, do not really support what you are hoping they do. 

 

 

It's not rough although I know it must be rough consistently being wrong for some about he way they thought this war would unfold.  Read the recent report on the broken down peace talks i posted? if you can't understand the way this war has gone then that's a problem for you. The answer to your pathetic question is yes although you could have just quoted the parts you thought backed up your argument but alas here we are having another game of round the houses. If you think sanctions have worked tell it those you couldn't afford to heat their homes through increasing energy and cost of living costs. Or dont they count in armchair general world? 

 

 

 

 

Anyway here it is again if you missed it. The talks that never happened, the deals that couldn't be struck. You keep painting yourself pretty landscapes. I've got better things to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

You seem to have instantly lost any focus when yo, lets just talk about the article you just posted. It will serve the same purpose.

 

Here it is:

 

An influential global body has forecast Russia's economy will grow faster than all of the world's advanced economies, including the US, this year.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Russia to grow 3.2% this year, significantly more than the UK, France and Germany.

Oil exports have "held steady" and government spending has "remained high" contributing to growth, the IMF said.

Overall, it said the world economy had been "remarkably resilient"

"Despite many gloomy predictions, the world avoided a recession, the banking system proved largely resilient, and major emerging market economies did not suffer sudden stops," the IMF said.

 

The IMF is an international organisation with 190 member countries. They are used by businesses to help plan where to invest, and by central banks, such as the Bank of England to guide its decisions on interest rates.

The group says that the forecasts it makes for growth the following year in most advanced economies, more often than not, have been within about 1.5 percentage points of what actually happens.

Despite the Kremlin being sanctioned over its invasion of Ukraine, the IMF upgraded its January predictions for the Russian economy this year, and said while growth would be lower in 2025, it would be still be higher than previously expected at 1.8%.

Investments from corporate and state owned enterprises and "robustness in private consumption" within Russia had promoted growth alongside strong exports of oil, according to Petya Koeva Brooks, deputy director at the IMF.

Russia is one of the world's biggest oil exporters and in February, the BBC revealed millions of barrels of fuel made from Russian oil were still being imported to the UK despite sanctions.

 

Away from Russia, the IMF downgraded its forecasts across Europe and for the UK this year, predicting 0.5% growth this year, making the UK the second weakest performer across the G7 group of advanced economies, behind Germany.

The G7 also includes France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the US.

Growth is set to improve to 1.5% in 2025, putting the UK among the top three best performers in the G7, according to the IMF.

However, the IMF said that interest rates in the UK will remain higher than other advanced nations, close to 4% until 2029.

 

The group expects the UK to have the highest inflation of any G7 economy in 2023 and 2024.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said the IMF's figures showed that the UK economy was turning a corner.

"Inflation in 2024 is predicted to be 1.2% lower than before, and over the next six years we are projected to grow faster than large European economies such as Germany or France - both of which have had significantly larger downgrades to short-term growth than the UK," he said.

 

 

The last bit is an interesting take on the numbers for sure.

We are assuming you are hip to how GDP works during wartime.

I've bolded the bits of interest and italics are certainly a concern for other G7 countries.

Keep in mind how expensive heating would have been in the UK (notice it is just the UK) if you had held to the sanctions.

You can point out the part where you were right.

[SasaS]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

It's not rough although I know it must be rough consistently being wrong for some about he way they thought this war would unfold.  Read the recent report on the broken down peace talks i posted? if you can't understand the way this war has gone then that's a problem for you. The answer to your pathetic question is yes although you could have just quoted the parts you thought backed up your argument but alas here we are having another game of round the houses. If you think sanctions have worked tell it those you couldn't afford to heat their homes through increasing energy and cost of living costs. Or dont they count in armchair general world? 

 

 

 

 

Anyway here it is again if you missed it. The talks that never happened, the deals that couldn't be struck. You keep painting yourself pretty landscapes. I've got better things to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should really occasionally read the articles you link to, not just their (mis)interpretation on Twitter.

 

Like the one on negotiations.

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You seem to have instantly lost any focus when yo, lets just talk about the article you just posted. It will serve the same purpose.

 

Here it is:

 

An influential global body has forecast Russia's economy will grow faster than all of the world's advanced economies, including the US, this year.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Russia to grow 3.2% this year, significantly more than the UK, France and Germany.

Oil exports have "held steady" and government spending has "remained high" contributing to growth, the IMF said.

Overall, it said the world economy had been "remarkably resilient"

"Despite many gloomy predictions, the world avoided a recession, the banking system proved largely resilient, and major emerging market economies did not suffer sudden stops," the IMF said.

 

The IMF is an international organisation with 190 member countries. They are used by businesses to help plan where to invest, and by central banks, such as the Bank of England to guide its decisions on interest rates.

The group says that the forecasts it makes for growth the following year in most advanced economies, more often than not, have been within about 1.5 percentage points of what actually happens.

Despite the Kremlin being sanctioned over its invasion of Ukraine, the IMF upgraded its January predictions for the Russian economy this year, and said while growth would be lower in 2025, it would be still be higher than previously expected at 1.8%.

Investments from corporate and state owned enterprises and "robustness in private consumption" within Russia had promoted growth alongside strong exports of oil, according to Petya Koeva Brooks, deputy director at the IMF.

Russia is one of the world's biggest oil exporters and in February, the BBC revealed millions of barrels of fuel made from Russian oil were still being imported to the UK despite sanctions.

 

Away from Russia, the IMF downgraded its forecasts across Europe and for the UK this year, predicting 0.5% growth this year, making the UK the second weakest performer across the G7 group of advanced economies, behind Germany.

The G7 also includes France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the US.

Growth is set to improve to 1.5% in 2025, putting the UK among the top three best performers in the G7, according to the IMF.

However, the IMF said that interest rates in the UK will remain higher than other advanced nations, close to 4% until 2029.

 

The group expects the UK to have the highest inflation of any G7 economy in 2023 and 2024.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said the IMF's figures showed that the UK economy was turning a corner.

"Inflation in 2024 is predicted to be 1.2% lower than before, and over the next six years we are projected to grow faster than large European economies such as Germany or France - both of which have had significantly larger downgrades to short-term growth than the UK," he said.

 

 

The last bit is an interesting take on the numbers for sure.

We are assuming you are hip to how GDP works during wartime.

I've bolded the bits of interest and italics are certainly a concern for other G7 countries. You can point out the part where you were right.

 

Now if you'd have posted that instead of your silly little sly post you'd have had a more polite response. Instead you derailed the thread. If you can't recall the predictions and posturing when sanctions were being announced on Russia I can't help you. 

 

 

It is intresting that Britain is still importing oil from Russia although its been a poorly guarded secret. After all the posturing and then the destruction of Nordstream (I believe Truss gave the call on behalf of you yanks) it makes us look even more stupid. I've said, we haven't played very smart. The sanctions haven't worked, your bold bits just understate it. 

 

 

As for Jeremy Hunt I'm not denying the state of the UK economy and I'm not sure what it's got to do with my post, which was fairly simple to understand. 

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

 

You should really occasionally read the articles you link to, not just their (mis)interpretation on Twitter.

 

Like the one on negotiations.

 

And we have another one. The man who has been wrong about almost fuvking everything on this thread. Of course I've read the fucking article you two bob Captain Mainwaring cunt. You meanwhile were one of the ones denying talks at all.  The article before that I had to explain it to you in short because you couldn't open the link you numpty.  

[TheHowieLama]

 I've said, we haven't played very smart. The sanctions haven't worked, your bold bits just understate it. 

 

 

The bold parts do not confirm them though they may be understated. That is why I asked if you had read it.

 

Please stop using "we" in this instance. Other G7 countries have not done similar and the state of the economy in the UK is very much to do with the UK.