Russian invasion of Ukraine

[jagfox]

 

 

[Todd_is_God]

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?

Edited May 27, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[dirty dingus]

8 minutes 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?

To weaken Russian military powers so they are left with a bucket, spade and nuclear weapons. Leaving the Middle East, Africa and the various Stans to be liberated from Russian influence.

[DiegoDiego]

I only ask because, for the rest of the world, the best outcome is peace ASAP

Is 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?

[welshbairn]

The aim should be to massively disincentivise Russia from invading its neighbours and trying to reclaim its Empire. 

[Todd_is_God]

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.

[Todd_is_God]

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?

[DiegoDiego]

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.

[vikingTON]

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. 

[dirty dingus]

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." 

[Todd_is_God]

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

[welshbairn]

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.

[Todd_is_God]

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?

[Detournement]

Dormolin copy and pasting absolute drivel from Reddit has made this thread so much better. 

[welshbairn]

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. 

 

[DiegoDiego]

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.

[dirty dingus]

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.

[strichener]

Hungary have declared a state of emergency.  Probably worried Putin loses.

[ICTChris]

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.  

[jagfox]