The War in Ukraine
1 lurker |
43 watchers
Sep 2024
2:52pm, 8 Sep 2024
10,471 posts
|
Northern Exile
Mmm. Fake, methinks 🙂
|
Sep 2024
5:20pm, 8 Sep 2024
9,396 posts
|
Pothunter
That scene from Hot Fuzz springs to mind 
|
Sep 2024
9:57am, 9 Sep 2024
3,463 posts
|
Muttley
Turns out to be not fake but a dummy so NE is close to the mark. Still shouldn't play with anything like this though! x.com |
Sep 2024
12:25pm, 9 Sep 2024
29,204 posts
|
richmac
Anything that causes shit in Russia is good with me
|
|
Sep 2024
8:53am, 10 Sep 2024
3,464 posts
|
Muttley
Drones hit Moscow. It brings home to docile Russians only a fraction of the terror they've been inflicting on Ukraine for years but it's a start. And something that the official propaganda cannot ignore. x.com |
|
Sep 2024
9:03am, 10 Sep 2024
10,473 posts
|
Northern Exile
I would be intrigued to know more of the realities of those drone launches. I'm also slightly aghast that Russian PVO appear powerless to stop them!
|
|
Sep 2024
5:11pm, 10 Sep 2024
29,212 posts
|
richmac
Yeah that is a shock, maybe they have been forced to move stuff to Kursk to cover the incursion. Showing that Putin is more stretched than he would admit |
|
Sep 2024
10:41pm, 11 Sep 2024
10,475 posts
|
Northern Exile
Is Keir Starmer really ready for war with Russia? When Keir Starmer visits the Oval Office on Friday to see Joe Biden the two men will discuss whether to grant President Volodymyr Zelensky one of his key asks: to use Storm Shadow missiles – which so far have been used only against Russian marks in occupied Ukrainian territory – to on targets inside Russia itself. Biden looks set to say yes. That’s because the more cautious voices in Washington are catching up with those in London. But it’s not just Zelensky’s begging that has effected the change of heart. It’s down to a fundamental shift in attitudes to this war, now in its gruelling third year. While once diplomats worried that attacking Russia on home soil could lead to spiralling military escalation ending with a nuclear strike, the calibration has changed. Now the concern is that the conflict could turn into a never-ending war of attrition with a messy outcome determined by who runs out of weapons first. The Kremlin said on Wednesday that Russia would respond “appropriately” if the US were to allow Ukrainian missile strikes on its territory. That language was deliberately ambiguous, designed not to show Vladimir Putin’s hand while he considers his response. For Putin, whose entire narrative has been around Russian victimhood, any military riposte will be measured against how big a humiliation the missiles cause. The Russian leader is also facing pressure from Moscow’s elite after Ukraine’s August offensive broke through the border into the Russian region of Kursk. That triggered “questions” about the point of the war, CIA director Bill Burns said last week, calling Kyiv’s move “a significant tactical achievement” that had boosted Ukrainian morale and exposed Russia’s weaknesses. After Kyiv blitzed Moscow with its biggest ever drone attack this week, those elite dissenting voices are only getting louder. “So far Putin has shown himself able to accept a certain amount of humiliation,” according to Jonathan Eyal, associate director at think tank Rusi, told i. “The Russian response to Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has been subdued because he has been able to tell Russians at home that even if he is not winning the war, he isn’t losing it. If train stations in Moscow go up in flames the level of humiliation will skyrocket and his reply could escalate too. “In their discussions with the US and the UK, the Ukrainians will be taking this into account when they consider where to target the Storm Shadows. The Ukrainians might be told, ‘You can hit targets in Russia but not high-value targets. You can hit military targets, just don’t launch a missile at Red Square’.” The US has previously shunned Zelensky’s pleas to use the weapons, which are UK-supplied but contain American components. However, US secretary of state Antony Blinken visited Kyiv with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Wednesday to “look and listen”, after saying he was “not ruling out” permission to fire them at Russian supply lines and airfields used to bombard Ukraine. According to insiders on both sides of the Atlantic, the public shouldn’t expect to see any announcement from London or Washington explicitly allowing Ukraine to change course – but if smaller military targets suddenly go up in flames, observers will be able to join up the dots. The US and UK want to allow Zelensky to prod the Russian bear harder but meanwhile keep their own hands in their pockets. Biden and Starmer know time is running out for Zelensky to make a decisive breakthrough. Nowhere was that more obvious than Tuesday night’s debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The Republican candidate sidestepped a direct question on whether he wanted Ukraine to win in its war against Russia, replying simply: “I want the war to stop.” It underlined existing concerns that a second Trump administration could suspend military support for Kyiv at a crucial moment in the war. Trump went on to say that if elected he would negotiate a deal even before becoming president. And this would be likely to happen. If he were to become president-elect in November, there would be a scramble by Kyiv’s allies to mitigate the loss in support before Congress’s $61bn package runs out next spring. That’s because on current terms the ultimate winner won’t be decided on battlefield tactics, but on who can throw more money at the problem. As it stands the war seems intractable. Putin is demanding Zelensky withdraw his forces from the Ukrainian regions that Russia partially occupies, alongside abandoning its bid to join Nato before he agrees to a ceasefire. Fundamental to Zelensky’s position is a refusal to give up any territory. But it’s not just the prospect of a Trump White House that is focusing minds on speeding up the endgame. There is also a recognition in international capitals that public opinion is sliding towards war fatigue. How solid the support for Kyiv remains is a growing question for European administrations weighing up domestic spending priorities against a range of pressures. Some governments – including Starmer’s to a lesser degree – are also under the growing pressure of right-wing movements, some of which take foreign policy lessons from Trump. If Trump is the most vocal embodiment of the “end the war now” brigade, at the other end of the spectrum is former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson. He uses his influence to push the “give Ukraine what it needs” argument. That voters now need reminders to back Ukraine is one problem. Cost of living pressures are another pressure point both in the UK and abroad. Questioners ask more loudly if the war is a never-ending money pit. While Starmer has said nothing in public that would suggest he’s giving up on Ukraine, he has the UK’s Budget next month at the back of his mind as he makes a series of painful choices for this fiscal year and the medium term. Britain has provided £7.6bn in military support since the invasion and will provide £3bn in 2024-25. That’s alongside non-military commitments since the start of the invasion which come to £5bn plus another £357m in humanitarian assistance. It won’t be long before the defence budget catches the eye of Labour MPs fed up with Starmer’s gloom-and-doom routine on cutting fuel payments for pensioners and capping child benefits. The other factor focusing the mind of the PM and Biden is the discovery that Iran has supplied Russia with more long-range weapons. That prompted the UK, along with France, Germany and Italy, to cancel its bilateral air services arrangement with Iran, which will restrict Iran Air’s ability to fly in the UK and Europe. As Blinken and Lammy arrived in Kyiv, the British Government announced it was banning 10 commercial ships it accuses of illicitly transporting Russian oil in violation of international sanctions. And while Russia may have found an ally in Iran, it doesn’t enjoy as much support as it once did from China. In May, despite the red-carpet rollout, Putin’s visit to Beijing was greeted with bland platitudes and warnings from President Xi Jinping against the use of nuclear weapons. But China, as always, is putting its own strategic interest first. “The West have come to a mythical conclusion about the influence Xi exerts on Putin, that he’s acting as a brake on Russia going crazy and launching a nuclear weapon,” Eyal added. “There’s no doubt Xi told Putin ‘don’t be stupid’ on nukes, but really China doesn’t give a toss how the war ends in Ukraine. The only thing they care about is that Russia appears to win so that they can carry on their narrative about how the West is in decline. A Russian failure to recapture what it calls one of its own historic territories would also recalibrate how China sees its own chances of retaking Taiwan.” Friday’s Oval Office meeting should be interesting. One of the reasons the Biden administration created red lines about how equipment is used, is that it is nearly impossible to calibrate the possibilities of Putin’s response. On the escalation ladder towards Russia’s President using nuclear weapons. there are several steps. One of the first moves Putin may take could include a threat to British interests. Russia, which has so far not attacked the supply of weapons going into Ukraine, could change tactics and go after convoys of supplies. “British citizens may come in harm’s way,” Eyal added, although there has been no official confirmation of UK involvement in supply convoys. Russia could also step up its disinformation campaign or cyber attacks on Western targets including the UK, according to Government analysts who have been gaming the level of threat Russia poses. Even so, the threat of using a nuclear weapon is just as much a political tool as a tactical one. Putin, the bare-chested hardman, is still playing to a domestic audience, especially if missiles start raining down on Russian targets. Biden and Starmer know full well he is highly unpredictable. |
|
Sep 2024
7:31am, 12 Sep 2024
29,222 posts
|
richmac
That's a good roundup. I agree, Trump is a big threat to the west. And Russian misinformation is their chosen route rather than ICBMs, it's worked pretty well for them so far |
|
Sep 2024
8:17am, 12 Sep 2024
3,467 posts
|
Muttley
Well, if western countries had backed Kyiv properly in the first place when Russia embarked on its war of genocide, maybe we wouldn't have this war fatigue now. Although I'm not sure that fatigue is as strong as some say, I think the public are well aware of what Russia is -- a terrorist state. And I don't buy this "he's got nukes, mustn't provoke him" line. Putin is evil but he's not suicidal. He knows that any use of nukes will bring obliteration. Like the sneaky coward he is, he'll likely retaliate against strategic infrastructure such as cables. But even then, he knows that in a fight with Nato, he's going to lose. However, if the orange man gets into the White House he'll appease Putin immediately and Europe will be on its own. |
Related Threads
-
Helping Refugees
Apr 2022
-
🇺🇦 Ukraine Red Cross - a way WE can help.
Mar 2022
