Jump to content

Russian invasion of Ukraine


Sonam

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The Telegraph are dipping their toe into the pool of fascism. 

20220302_111835.jpg

The answer to their question on the RMT is, presumably, "Nowhere near as close as the Telegraph".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tge 70's were horrible. Tory government under Heath, miners strike, 3 day week, unions in winter of discontent, failed Scottish devolution vote, oil crises, Thatcher Government. Utterly miserable decade.

Despite all the strikes and social upheaval there were also some advances to general standards of living that I remember during the 70s.
Many were materialistic and things we don’t think twice about now.
I remember central heating getting installed in our house, a landline telephone(remember them) and colour TV(usually rented). A proper freezer so we didn’t just have that wee bit at the top of the fridge.
I also remember my Gran getting a washing machine and no longer having to use the wash house in the close on a certain day each week.
By the 80s all I remember is unemployment rising and the public housing and state owned assets being sold off which has caused many of the problems we still face in this country these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

Suggestion on Jeremy Vine's show there to get Paul McCartney involved in negotiations as Putin's favourite group is The Beatles 😯

 

 

21 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

image.png.66ea41c694e0cb905d986b8c77709fa4.png

Ukraine girls... leave the West behind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

If Putin does retaliate for any further actions e.g. NATO no fly zone over Ukraine, where exactly does anyone think he would target? Somewhere like Poland, or further west?

The airbases in NATO countries staging the aircraft. Which is where the spirally levels of escalation come in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, renton said:

I'm not sure there has ever been a realistic scenario where it would stop at tactical nukes deployed on the battlefield.

The "escalate to de-escalate" logic has been discussed in the past. I don't know if it has ever been official Russian policy but I wouldn't say it's necessarily unrealistic logic.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

If Putin does retaliate for any further actions e.g. NATO no fly zone over Ukraine, where exactly does anyone think he would target? Somewhere like Poland, or further west?

Anywhere he wants. A no fly zone would put Nato and Russia in a state of war, the exact reason there will not be one imo.

2 minutes ago, yoda said:

I don't know if it has ever been official Russian policy but I wouldn't say it's necessarily unrealistic logic.   

Small tactical nukes as mentioned in a previous post have always been part of the nuclear doctrine of Russia in conventional conflicts if I recall correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The general military understanding on nukes is that size doesn’t matter, so to speak. If I have a 1 kiloton weapon and use it, I’ve still used a nuclear weapon and my opponent may respond in kind, even if he/she only has 100 kiloton and up weapons. This also applies across brands, as in Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons are all a single class with regard to use and response…they are all WMDs. 

If that were the case then militaries (starting with the US) wouldn't have developed battlefield nukes in the first place. They were designed to be a tactical option below the level of a city-scale attack. 

The temptation to use them combined with the high risk of escalation is precisely what makes them dangerous. There can be no justification for having them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

When-Paul-McCartney-met-Vladimir-Putin.j

Fucking hell, looking at that picture vs recent appearances, it's clearly obvious how much of a bloated caricature of himself he looks in the last couple of years.

Putin is in bad shape as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jedi said:

It's looking more like the 'best' that Ukraine will be able to get out of this, diplomatically, is to have their country split pretty much in half, and presumably a Russian puppet as PM (can't see them allowing Zelensky to continue). Russians take the eastern area and have troops stationed there. western section is 'still' Ukraine.

Of course there will be ongoing guerrilla attacks on the Russians for some time to come in that scenario, but by then it will have slipped to pages 14 and 15 of tabloids here.

We would then just have to hope that Putin 'stops' at eastern Ukraine, although he will naturally have been emboldened. Kicking the can down the road for hsi next incursion, wherever that may be.

Meantime, Europe will have to start moving to build alternative supplies of energy now, though that will take years....how long would it take everyone to run an electric car (15 years?)

Until the average price reduces from £40k down to about £16k to £20k, then I'm afraid that only the elite in society (or those rattling the PCP) will be able to afford one !!

Not to mention the complete lack of charging infrastructure of course....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, virginton said:

If that were the case then militaries (starting with the US) wouldn't have developed battlefield nukes in the first place. They were designed to be a tactical option below the level of a city-scale attack. 

The temptation to use them combined with the high risk of escalation is precisely what makes them dangerous. There can be no justification for having them. 

Are they part of the arsenal for use against combatants that dont have any nukes at all? Even just as a threat maybe?

If the other side has them then i guess MAD applies, plus any nation using them in a conflict has the stigma of using a nuke, even if its a low megaton yield one, so maybe they're pointless tbf. A few conventional big bombs can be pretty devastating in their own right.

Edited by Thistle_do_nicely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WATTOO said:

Until the average price reduces from £40k down to about £16k to £20k, then I'm afraid that only the elite in society (or those rattling the PCP) will be able to afford one !!

Not to mention the complete lack of charging infrastructure of course....

The prices will reduce rapidly in time if the support is there, we're currently still at the bottom of that S curve. The infrastructure is the biggie for me and is the biggest blockade to them picking up in popularity and ultimately pushing prices down. Every car park even now, still only has a tiny fraction of electric charging spaces. Every main road where cars park outside blocks of flats, every driveway.

The thought that we'll fully move away from Petrol/Diesel by the middle of the decade is a laughable pipedream at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...