Ukraine

Today is first anniversary of the ahem, "special operation" that Russia has mounted against Ukraine. Been several excellent documentaries on it, the BBC Panorama one on Tuesday was superb.
Horrendous what that utter $%"^ Putin is doing.

Can only hope Western backing doesn't diminish. There is opposition to support America is giving from the Republican party apparently. Without support from Nato countries Ukraine won't win, even with it's going to be another brutal year at least.

Yep. Keep your fingers crossed everyone - 2023 will be important. This could quite easily escalate.

Currently reading Shirer's 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' and it is incredible the similarities between Hitler's approach to the Anschluss, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc and what Putin has done so far. Putin is clearly stirring the pot in Transnistria as well - ethnic Russians blah blah blah... Hopefully, the diplomats from NATO countries and the US are making it crystal clear that any further steps by Putin, whatsoever, will lead to problems for him on a large scale.

Who knows what China are up to, especially, or India, but they're really important to the duration and scale of this conflict.

"Boris Johnson interested in applying for post of NATO Secretary-General"
https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/02/23/boris-johnson-interested-in-applying-for-post-of-nato-secretary-general/

'We will not!' Ben Wallace in strong defiance of Boris' demand for Ukraine fighter jets
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has warned that if the UK gave Ukraine fighter jets it would involve sending British RAF personnel into the conflict.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1738860/ben-wallace-ukraine-fighter-jets-boris-johnson-president-zelensky-update

With regard to China they have released a position paper that gives an indicator of their thoughts on the matter. It is a three page document that puts what is happening in Ukraine into a wider context - at least according to China.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_11027664.html

What is the exit strategy for this conflict? That doesn't lead to Nukes.

the-goon2 wrote:What is the exit strategy for this conflict? That doesn't lead to Nukes.

The cost of using nukes is too high for Russia. They actually have a very significant problem here - in that nukes are expensive to maintain (and, for instance, require a change in fissile materials every few years). Given the corruption problems elsewhere in Russia what are the chances that weapons that are unlikely ever to be used are properly maintained and ready for use?

So on the one hand you have weapons that only remain potent on paper, in particular until you try and use them, and on the other parts of the establishment that are not keen on playing Stalker or Fallout for real in the future.

It is all about probabilities. In some regards we are closer to nuclear war than we ever have been, but the Russians know it is a war they would lose. They may or may not be able to cause devastation, but that Brexit mentality of any pain being worth it as long as the opposition suffers as well is unlikely to run all the way through Russian politics.

Another way of looking at it is what is the choice? If we step back from Ukraine and if it fell as a result then there is a good chance that Russia would try elsewhere, and the kind of final show down nobody wants is delayed rather than avoided. We can't live in fear of Russia's big stick.

The best result is that Russia is driven out of Ukraine, through exhaustion or good old fashioned defeat on the battlefield, followed by Putin's 'exit' and the internal collapse of Russia as warlords fight for supremacy and the states it has already absorbed break away. We'll see.

lostinwales wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:What is the exit strategy for this conflict? That doesn't lead to Nukes.

The cost of using nukes is too high for Russia. They actually have a very significant problem here - in that nukes are expensive to maintain (and, for instance, require a change in fissile materials every few years). Given the corruption problems elsewhere in Russia what are the chances that weapons that are unlikely ever to be used are properly maintained and ready for use?

So on the one hand you have weapons that only remain potent on paper, in particular until you try and use them, and on the other parts of the establishment that are not keen on playing Stalker or Fallout for real in the future.

It is all about probabilities. In some regards we are closer to nuclear war than we ever have been, but the Russians know it is a war they would lose. They may or may not be able to cause devastation, but that Brexit mentality of any pain being worth it as long as the opposition suffers as well is unlikely to run all the way through Russian politics.

Another way of looking at it is what is the choice? If we step back from Ukraine and if it fell as a result then there is a good chance that Russia would try elsewhere, and the kind of final show down nobody wants is delayed rather than avoided. We can't live in fear of Russia's big stick.

The best result is that Russia is driven out of Ukraine, through exhaustion or good old fashioned defeat on the battlefield, followed by Putin's 'exit' and the internal collapse of Russia as warlords fight for supremacy and the states it has already absorbed break away. We'll see.

First bold part - the chance that Russia's nuclear weapons might be functional (or at least sufficient of them to cause massive damage) is clearly not a risk the west can take.

Second bold - Cold be that Putin's exit comes first - I've heard rumours of ill healthm and this being a last hurrah of sorts. Alternatively the Russian populous just grow tired of the stalemate and deaths in Ukraine a, drise against Putina nd his regime.

The way it looks at present the best hope is Putin either gets very ill/dies or is ousted by own side which seems unlikely. In the early days the hope as such was someone on the inside would take him out as it were. Now a year on that hasn't happened and surely would have done by now.

Given what we know about Putin it seems extremly unlikely he will concede defeat, we have to trust Nato will continue support to Ukraine. However does that mean a virtual stalemate of Russia not stopping and Ukraine with enough resources to continue to resist.

To answer question of how it ends without nukes, I don't know and I expect even the top military/politicals don't. The fear I have is China support to Russia which then gives them almost endless arms etc plus better tech.

A year on and it's still grim. Rather like Covid, we are hearing less each day about it in the news but it's still going on big time.

The point about nukes (and yes its odd in a way) is that they only retain value when they are not used. Regardless we can't move forward unless we put that worry to one side.

China - is highly unlikely to throw their lot in with Russia, vaguely supportive messages aside. They are hugely dependent on exports to USA and Europe to keep the factories running and those won't survive the sanctions that will come with explicit military support for Russia.

It is going to be very interesting for a while. Notable that Serbia seem to have switched their position recently, selling ammo to Ukraine and saying that Serbian Wagner recruits will be arrested when (if) they try coming home.

mountain man wrote:The way it looks at present the best hope is Putin either gets very ill/dies or is ousted by own side which seems unlikely. In the early days the hope as such was someone on the inside would take him out as it were. Now a year on that hasn't happened and surely would have done by now.

Given what we know about Putin it seems extremly unlikely he will concede defeat, we have to trust Nato will continue support to Ukraine. However does that mean a virtual stalemate of Russia not stopping and Ukraine with enough resources to continue to resist.

To answer question of how it ends without nukes, I don't know and I expect even the top military/politicals don't. The fear I have is China support to Russia which then gives them almost endless arms etc plus better tech.

A year on and it's still grim. Rather like Covid, we are hearing less each day about it in the news but it's still going on big time.

I don't think China has so much love for Russia that they will go much beyond some supportive words - the Chinese government realise that their economy is largely based on providing goods to the West, and doing anything to risk that trade is self defeating. In their case, economic power trumps geopolitical idealism (not that China and Russia are particularly friendly anyway - just somewhat closer than China and the US)

the-goon2 wrote:What is the exit strategy for this conflict? That doesn't lead to Nukes.

Putin doing an Adolf.

mountain man wrote:To answer question of how it ends without nukes, I don't know and I expect even the top military/politicals don't.

The issue is that, simply put, the answer is either Russia completely withdrawing or a peace deal with Ukraine giving up some land, and neither is likely without a regime change somewhere.

Problem for Russia there is though they like to portray their operation as being against the Zelensky regime, that regime itself is a symptom of the resistance and more popular than ever. There were mixed feelings about Zelensky before the war, but not now. That Ukrainian resistance is not dependent on him.

lostinwales wrote:Problem for Russia there is though they like to portray their operation as being against the Zelensky regime, that regime itself is a symptom of the resistance and more popular than ever. There were mixed feelings about Zelensky before the war, but not now. That Ukrainian resistance is not dependent on him.

Not any more. Good point.

The Russian forces haven't helped themselves in this either, given their bestial behaviour. Talk about not winning any hearts and minds. Cretins.

The Russians/Soviets have history when it comes to that type of behaviour. In WW2 when they were pushing the Germans back to Berlin, they r*ped, killed and destroyed everything in front of them. Be they German, Polish, Czech etc, civilian, women or children. Once they won, and occupied the territory, they simply suppressed that it ever happened. Likely similar attitude here.

the-goon2 wrote:The Russians/Soviets have history when it comes to that type of behaviour. In WW2 when they were pushing the Germans back to Berlin, they r*ped, killed and destroyed everything in front of them. Be they German, Polish, Czech etc, civilian, women or children. Once they won, and occupied the territory, they simply suppressed that it ever happened. Likely similar attitude here.

Indeed. At least they sort of had an understandable excuse then. Not now...

I mean, people trying to defend Russian actions here (it's all lies, false flag etc) seem to have missed the simple fact that it seems every country they invade are immediately forced to bomb and murder their own civilians.

(Chechnya, Georgia, Syria etc.)

Possibly just me, but the U.S.S.R. (and Russia) have never been forced to confront their recent history of mass murder. Not in the early period of their communist past, not the forced relocations/deaths/famines, not the Chekist/NKVD/KGB stuff, not WWII, not Katyn, not Stalin, not the Iron Curtain period, not the gulags. Nothing.

Germany and Japan were forced to do that. The U.S.S.R. was part of the WWII victors, so has never gone through any period of reflection on the awful parts of their recent history. Interesting factoid: look up Vasily Blokhin for the sort of person lauded in Stalin's U.S.S.R.

Anything 'good' about the role of the U.S.S.R. in WWII (and they really were essential, but don't forget their alliance w/ Hitler in chopping up Poland, invading the Baltic States etc etc pre-Barbarossa) has been claimed by Russia alone. Obviously, the other parts of the U.S.S.R. didn't contribute anything in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. Ironic, really, as even Stalin wasn't actually Russian.

If anyone's interested, well worth reading Mark Galeotti's 'The Vory' and other stuff.

Bit of a pity that such a nation can be repeatedly led so badly astray. I'm sure most 'normal' Russians just want to get on with their own lives, much like the rest of us.

The Estonian Foreign Minister has said there are only two options to save Ukraine from Russia
a) NATO forces enter Ukraine (not just equipment) to support Ukraine and to directly fight Russia in Ukraine.
b) Give Ukraine nuclear weapons.

Newsweek Article: "Only NATO or Nukes Can Save Ukraine From Russia: Estonia Foreign Minister"
https://www.newsweek.com/only-nato-nukes-can-save-ukraine-russia-urmas-reinsalu-1785023

No name Bertie wrote:The Estonian Foreign Minister has said there are only two options to save Ukraine from Russia
a) NATO forces enter Ukraine (not just equipment) to support Ukraine and to directly fight Russia in Ukraine.
b) Give Ukraine nuclear weapons.

Newsweek Article: "Only NATO or Nukes Can Save Ukraine From Russia: Estonia Foreign Minister"
https://www.newsweek.com/only-nato-nukes-can-save-ukraine-russia-urmas-reinsalu-1785023

It's not true but certainly helps to generate attention.

In all honesty Russia was talking about a big offensive for a while, and it is happening now. Of course Ukraine is taking losses, and will lose some ground, but there is no evidence of any major breakthrough or even evidence that it might be possible. Russia is going to burn itself out over the next few weeks, and then we'll see what Ukraine has managed to keep back.

Unless internal Russian politics catches up with its rulers this war will drag out for much longer than any of us would hope for, but there very definitely is hope for a Ukrainian victory.

According to the BBC, the UK Ministry of Defence's latest intelligence indicates that Russians are out of ammunition and are fighting in Ukraine with shovels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760

lostinwales wrote:I mean, people trying to defend Russian actions here (it's all lies, false flag etc) seem to have missed the simple fact that it seems every country they invade are immediately forced to bomb and murder their own civilians.

(Chechnya, Georgia, Syria etc.)

Is anyone defending Russian actions? Can't say I've noticed that unless I missed it.

Unless Sergei Lavrov is a member of the forum. He's certainly "a" member that's for sure.

mountain man wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I mean, people trying to defend Russian actions here (it's all lies, false flag etc) seem to have missed the simple fact that it seems every country they invade are immediately forced to bomb and murder their own civilians.

(Chechnya, Georgia, Syria etc.)

Is anyone defending Russian actions? Can't say I've noticed that unless I missed it.

Unless Sergei Lavrov is a member of the forum. He's certainly "a" member that's for sure.

Not here. On social media there are plenty of pro Russian trolls. One called me a Nazi. I guess seeing that as his profile said he was pro Trump and pro Brexit he'd be an expert in that area.

Ah, OK. You did write "here" so assuming you meant on this forum. Thought I'd missed something.

Social media? Yeah, not the greatest. I briefly tried Muppet but it's just too depressing.

For Muppet read a different word similar to Twitter but with an a instead of an i. Good old anti swear filter eh....

No name Bertie wrote:According to the BBC,  the UK Ministry of Defence's latest intelligence indicates that Russians are out of ammunition and are fighting in Ukraine with shovels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760

That can't be true. I mean surely not. I have nothing to rebuff or anything, but surely Russia has plenty of ammo.

the-goon2 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:According to the BBC,  the UK Ministry of Defence's latest intelligence indicates that Russians are out of ammunition and are fighting in Ukraine with shovels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760

That can't be true. I mean surely not. I have nothing to rebuff or anything, but surely Russia has plenty of ammo.

Think it's the Wagner group that is having resupply/ammo issues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64859780

The following is an interesting article published in 2004 in the Guardian with title US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev. It details how the United States created grass roots organisations to give rise to popular uprisings in countries such as Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Serbia as part of a foreign policy of promoting regime change.  It justified this US interference by asserting the elections of these nations were rigged as claimed by US Intelligence and so their governments were illegitimate and had to be overthrown:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

Those paying an interest in American politics has seen how American elections have been claimed to be rigged more recently.  So for example in 2016 when Donald Trump won the US Presidential Election it was claimed that Putin interfered with the election to get trump into power.  In the following Wikipedia article it says this was a FACT - Russian interference resulted in Trump getting elected as claimed by US Intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

In 2020 When Donald Trump lost the US Presidential Election he claimed the Elections were rigged.   There were certainly some strange things that happened during that election with counting stopping late at night in key swing states when Donald Trump was ahead.  Then the counting restarted at 4 am and the leads that Trump had before the counts were stopped disappeared and the rest is history.   This time US intelligence claimed that the elections were not rigged, denounced such claims as conspiracy theory and then it was said that Trump led an insurrection on Jan 6 2021 to grab power by force.  He and his supporters have since been denounced by President Joe Biden as a threat to democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-give-prime-time-speech-battle-soul-nation-stepped-attacks-republ-rcna45766

How much weight should we place on "US Intelligence"?   Well when the US and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 US and British Intelligence justified the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could reach Britain in 45 or so minutes.

It is complicated. More so given the theory that significant funds for the Brexit campaign came from Russia, hence the whole Carol Cadwalla SLAPP case raised by Banks. There was also the now disbanded 'Conservative Friends of Russia' and direct donations to the Conservative party and Johnson's mate Lebedev that he put in the HoL.

Now one of the interesting concepts I have read of is about time. That the USA 'promotes their interests' goes without saying, but democratic governments come and go, and therefore interests they promote change. That isn't the case with Russia, and they play much longer games, potentially funding both sides in an argument just to create more chaos.

Ultimately every case will be different. I don't think the help the US gave to movements in those Eastern European countries would of had much impact had there not already have been a strong will to break away from the Russian circle of influence. Also worth pointing out that (in very general terms) there are two organisations these countries want to join when they fully make that break. One is NATO, the other is the EU.

The British MOD have confirmed they are sending depleted Uranium Shells to the Eastern Ukraine / Russian Conflict zone.  

BBC (paraphrased) wrote:UK defends sending uranium shells after Putin warning

Putin: "Russia would be forced to react if the UK sent shells made with depleted uranium to Ukraine which is a weapon that contains a nuclear component to it"

UK MoD: "We are sending armour-piercing depleted uranium shells alongside Challenger 2 tanks.   They are standard issue and have been used by the British army  for decades.  Russia is deliberately trying to disinform as the shells have nothing to do with nuclear weapons and have a low risk of radiation.  Any impact to personal health and the environment from the use of depleted uranium munitions is likely to be low."

Former British Army tank commander & chemical weapons expert said: "Mr Putin's comments were classic disinformation and laughable.   These shells contain only trace amounts of depleted uranium which is only mildly radioactive."

Sergei Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister):  "Sending depleted uranium ammunition to Ukraine would mean the UK was ready to violate international humanitarian law as in 1999 in Yugoslavia.  This will end badly for London."

A Pentagon spokesman: "the US will not be sending any munitions with depleted uranium to Ukraine."

Shells with depleted uranium were used in Iraq and the Balkans where some claim it was linked to birth defects.

A 2022 UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report said "Depleted uranium can cause skin irritation, kidney failure and increase the risks of cancer.  Its chemical toxicity is a more significant issue than the possible impacts of its radioactivity."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65032671



The following links are first hand experiences of what is believed to be the legacy of the use of depleted uranium in Iraq (Gulf War):
Both reports give warnings of when birth deformities are shown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYaAh9X-s9w&ab_channel=Channel10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNi_1pbSqGY&ab_channel=DemocracyNow%21

None of the links between DU and birth defects are (to the best of my knowledge) proven.

Russians have been using DU for some time. It isn't a story as such, other than that the Challenger tanks are going to have some nice toys for eating up the 60 year old tanks they are going up against.

For those whose understanding is only based on headlines DU in itself is mainly an issue because the U stands for Uranium which makes people think radiation. DU is a byproduct of a refinement process where the bulk of the radioactive isotopes which produce radiation are extracted to make fuel for nuclear power plants which is what the 'Depleted' bit stands for. DU is a nasty poisonous heavy metal, but it is one of many unpleasant poisonous things left on the battlefield and no more inherently dangerous than lead for instance. The radioactivity bit is a red herring.

It's war, and a real one too. I don't believe DU munitions are illegal cf. cluster munitions, chemical/biological weapons etc? Maybe the commanders of the C2s in the field can use harsh language instead?

DU dust is pretty toxic, but as lostinwales says, only one of a myriad of dangerous contaminants on a battlefield.

This is one of my gripes re. politicians. They often appear to think war is a bit of a giggle. Don't like it; don't do it. As for Lavrov and the Russians re. this - they can just do one.

navyblueshorts wrote:It's war, and a real one too. I don't believe DU munitions are illegal cf. cluster munitions, chemical/biological weapons etc? Maybe the commanders of the C2s in the field can use harsh language instead?

DU dust is pretty toxic, but as lostinwales says, only one of a myriad of dangerous contaminants on a battlefield.

This is one of my gripes re. politicians. They often appear to think war is a bit of a giggle. Don't like it; don't do it. As for Lavrov and the Russians re. this - they can just do one.

To add to the above. DU munitions not illegal (and Russia use them anyway). To the best of my understanding cluster munitions are technically only illegal vs civilians (and guess where Russia uses those). There is certainly a push to give Ukraine cluster munitions as they would be in their element vs mass infantry attacks.

Mines too sit in a very difficult category. Russia is not a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty on AP mines, hence those not so nice butterfly mines that turn up in Ukraine.

Chemical/biological agents are both highly regulated (in theory) and fairly useless on the battlefield. Again, potentially very nasty vs civilians

Here is a curious fact.   Natalie Jaresko is an American born US Citizen.  She worked for the U.S state Department and was later moved to the American Embassy in Ukraine as the economic section chief.   After the Ukrainian Revolution / Coup of 2014 she was given Ukrainian citizenship and became the Finance Minister of Ukraine while retaining her U.S. citizenship. So here we have an example of a US Government official becoming a leading figure in the post revolutionary government of Ukraine (2014 to 2016). In 2017 she was moved to Puerto Rico taking up a US Government post.

Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

Sorry, this is going for the long run unless Russia agrees to both return to pre-2014 borders and agrees some form of reconstruction contributions, and the fact that this is Putin and the relevant people's eyes are now open. I'm sure you'd be more than happy if Mexico had invaded the southern USA and was currently now occupying most of, say, Texas, but someone like you was suggesting that, oh well, you should negotiate and probably accept all the loss and damage, eh?

Evidence re. Zelenskyy's hidden £600 million please? I'll happily accept a link to an authoritative analysis that supports your assertion...

Yes, it will linger on for a long time I believe. We'll know more after the proposed spring counter offensive starts. There will be many casualties on both sides and even if Ukraine makes some inroads into their former territories it won't be easy holding onto the wasteland gained. It's all so sad.

I noted the scaled down May 8 celebrations in Moscow. Just a few cronies from some former russian republics were present as well as that awful Wagner bloke. The irony of course is that many more died on Ukraine soil than any place else during WW2... at least 10 million; maybe even more. That makes Putin's comment about 'the West waging real war against Russia' sound even more ridiculously uninformed.

On another note - did anyone just see the Iron Dome of Israel knock out about 9 out of 10 missiles fired from Gaza? Pretty effective. They barely travelled a few thousand metres before being turned into puffs of smoke after getting picked off.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

Zelensky is independently wealthy from TV production work back in his previous career. No he wasn't the most popular leader when the invasion started, but he has a fantastic gift for saying and doing the right thing at the right time, and he's got some good military minds behind him. Ultimately he's a symptom of Ukrainian resistance, not the cause.

Ukraine definitely had a corruption problem but it is something that they are working on. The first step was kicking out the Russian proxy leadership back in 2014.

There is no way back around a table until Russia gets out of Ukraine. You don't show weakness, give concessions or back away from Russia, because it will keep pushing and at best you are just delaying the next phase. There are lots of problematic countries in the world. The USA has certainly had its moments, but few if any are as toxic and openly aggressive as Russia. The world will be a better place with less corrosive politics without Russia causing chaos by funding every crank they can find, at least until the next wealthy, manipulative dictatorship rises and starts playing the same games. The truth is also that the money spent on Ukraine is tiny given the impact it is having. A great deal of the equipment going out there is old stuff that was in mothballs or end of life. Significant numbers of Javelins were made up of stock that had been sitting in a warehouse for 20 years. Anyway There is a very good case for giving Ukraine everything it asks for, because that will bring the war to an end sooner, which in turn will be cheaper in the long run.

No Russia can't keep on doing this until doomsday. The numbers don't add up. Yes they can absorb monumental casualties by modern western standards and always raise more troops, but their quality. motivation and equipment are getting worse all the time, hence the massive display of modern armour at the May 9th parade. The biggest issue is going to be that the new cannon fodder is being increasingly raised from the stock of people who are economically active, and from generations which demographics are already hitting hard. Difficult to keep your economy going when there is nobody left to work in the factories.

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

Zelensky is independently wealthy from TV production work back in his previous career. No he wasn't the most popular leader when the invasion started, but he has a fantastic gift for saying and doing the right thing at the right time, and he's got some good military minds behind him. Ultimately he's a symptom of Ukrainian resistance, not the cause.

Ukraine definitely had a corruption problem but it is something that they are working on. The first step was kicking out the Russian proxy leadership back in 2014. .

The guy hid 600m away according to the Panama papers.....He's shut down non supporting radio stations....He's jailed opposition rivals..and he's accused of embezzling 400m worth of aid money....

Do me a favor...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

Zelensky is independently wealthy from TV production work back in his previous career. No he wasn't the most popular leader when the invasion started, but he has a fantastic gift for saying and doing the right thing at the right time, and he's got some good military minds behind him. Ultimately he's a symptom of Ukrainian resistance, not the cause.

Ukraine definitely had a corruption problem but it is something that they are working on. The first step was kicking out the Russian proxy leadership back in 2014. .

The guy hid 600m away according to the Panama papers.....He's shut down non supporting radio stations....He's jailed opposition rivals..and he's accused of embezzling 400m worth of aid money....

Do me a favor...

If you're going to post half truths at least get the source right, it's the Pandora papers not the Panama papers.

Soul Requiem wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's time everybody swallowed their pride and started really trying to get these two corrupt no good Countries around a table and find a way they can call it off and both declare victory..

Russia have bitten off more than they can chew but can keep this going from now until doomsday.

British and American money is better off at home...As the Panama papers show the Ukrainian Leader has 600m hidden away offshore which is good money for a Comedian...

Let him use some of that...

Simplistic I know but I'm a simple kinda guy....A poor boy looking for some Tourism.

Zelensky is independently wealthy from TV production work back in his previous career. No he wasn't the most popular leader when the invasion started, but he has a fantastic gift for saying and doing the right thing at the right time, and he's got some good military minds behind him. Ultimately he's a symptom of Ukrainian resistance, not the cause.

Ukraine definitely had a corruption problem but it is something that they are working on. The first step was kicking out the Russian proxy leadership back in 2014. .

The guy hid 600m away according to the Panama papers.....He's shut down non supporting radio stations....He's jailed opposition rivals..and he's accused of embezzling 400m worth of aid money....

Do me a favor...

If you're going to post half truths at least get the source right, it's the Pandora papers not the Panama papers.

Half truths....Where ???......

Pandora not Panama.....Yep !!! Hope your pedantic intervention made your day....Certainly in keeping with your overall contribution.

Glad it made your day..

https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption.

That's a helluva defence you are putting up with that line...

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

More likely to find Lord Lucan and Shergar in the same afternoon than get Truss to do this.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

More likely to find Lord Lucan and Shergar in the same afternoon than get Truss to do this.

I am interested to see what he can find. I'd be fine with being proved wrong about this, but I suspect he's full of conspiracy theory BS. A hint of truth extrapolated into tin foil territory.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

More likely to find Lord Lucan and Shergar in the same afternoon than get Truss to do this.

I am interested to see what he can find. I'd be fine with being proved wrong about this, but I suspect he's full of conspiracy theory BS. A hint of truth extrapolated into tin foil territory.

I haven't got a dog in the Russia v Ukraine fight......Can't stand both of them.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

More likely to find Lord Lucan and Shergar in the same afternoon than get Truss to do this.

I am interested to see what he can find. I'd be fine with being proved wrong about this, but I suspect he's full of conspiracy theory BS. A hint of truth extrapolated into tin foil territory.

I haven't got a dog in the Russia v Ukraine fight......Can't stand both of them.....

The people or the land masses?

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-panama-pandora-papers-offshore-companies-finances-1776124


You can argue about dodgy or 'complicated' business practices but not corruption. Produce reputable evidence to back up your claims please.

More likely to find Lord Lucan and Shergar in the same afternoon than get Truss to do this.

I am interested to see what he can find. I'd be fine with being proved wrong about this, but I suspect he's full of conspiracy theory BS. A hint of truth extrapolated into tin foil territory.

I haven't got a dog in the Russia v Ukraine fight......Can't stand both of them.....

The people or the land masses?  

The things he has extensive experience of.

I caught a glimpse of the Russia-Ukraine war 'expert', Prof. Michael Clarke being posed the question by one of the SKy News studio anchors the other day about "why hasn't the much talked about counter-offensive already begun... what's the hold up?" or words to that effect.

I do give him a lot of credit for knowing a fair deal about the military capabilities of both combatants, the technical details of the weaponry involved and the latest 'gains and losses' for each army (shown on that map) and a broad understanding of the latest overall strategic situation along that massive front line. He must also be aware that part of the world has seen more death and destruction than any other place on the planet.

I thought Prof. Clarke did well not to directly answer that one. He obviously has an good inkling of 'Why it hasn't'. What a stupid, ignorant question!

It was mentioned a few weeks ago that along the 1100 km front the Russians have amassed around 200,000 troops. That's one soldier every 5.5m. Of course, in reality, they are deployed in depth over this distance and have had months (or years more realistically) to dig their trenches, form the tank traps, create kill zones, plant mines, etc. In addition there is most likely over 100,000 others in reserve or able to be called up just to the rear of the intended conflict zones. Overall, Russia has around 900,000 active personnel (according to CNN) and another 2 million troops in reserve.

The Ukrainians had around 120,000 battle-ready troops pre-invasion but has also recruited around the same number and trained them up (at home and elsewhere; like in the UK) since Russia invaded, so we can probably say they have around 240,000 troops available right now and around 900,000 in reserve. It should be noted, of course, that this linear density of forces on both sides is not evenly distributed - so during actual combat the numbers are more concentrated in smaller, localised areas - resulting in huge numbers of casualties in very quick time.

That's a lot of troops on both sides but still pales in comparison to the area around Kursk in July 1943 and the Lower Dnieper in late 1943, where the front was more far concentrated with troops at the time. The Kursk bulge was approx. 80 km x 120 km - the German Army had about 146,000 (one soldier every 0.37m) up against the Soviet 6th Guards Army, who had around 47,000 (one soldier every 1.16m) - on the first echelon only. The Soviets had at least another 8 echelons (another 1.4 million soldiers) embedded deeper into the salient and millions more in reserve.

As the battle began and the Germans advanced only 8-12 km on the first day in the north (20-35 km in the south) and the forces on both sides naturally intensified in the contested areas as they smashed into each other. Add all the tanks, artillery and missile batteries which were deployed and you can imagine the scale of the killing zone. Nearly 2,700,000 men (both Armies), 8,000 tanks, 35,000 guns and mortars and at least 5,000 aircraft. It lasted just over one and a half months and there were an estimated 380,000-430,000 German losses (killed, missing or wounded) and 860,000 Soviet losses.

I know it's hard to compare the scale of today's horrible situation in Ukraine / Donbass with what happened nearly 80 years ago but once the much anticipated counter-offensive begins (it already has by some accounts; similar to Kursk, when officers and troops were captured alive in an effort to extract the latest information) there will be massive amounts of bloodshed.

Even if you divide the WW2 casualty numbers above by a factor of 10 - that's 124,000 to 129,000 killed, missing or wounded. Whether that's over weeks or months; it's still unimaginable to comprehend it happening in 2023.

So, back to my opening paragraph.

"Why hasn't the much talked about counter-offensive already begun... what's the hold up?"

It's easy for someone to be anxious, impatient or desirous of 'a decisive counter-offensive action' from the safety of a television studio thousands of kilometres away from the front lines. But this is not some kind of much-anticipated sporting contest or the launch of a political advertising campaign.

It's a brutal bloody war. I couldn't imagine anything worse. More training obviously is better than less; but one shouldn't forget there are human beings - on both sides - who are (or soon will be) a split second away from being very, very lucky or unlucky.

Why not more talk about Zelensky and his Mates taking money out of the Country..Locking up opposition leaders and silencing pro opposition radio and TV voices...

I care about the People of Russia and Ukraine and want a compromise that ends the stupidity where they can both claim a moral victory.... but I couldn't give a stuff about either of the two Countries and its ruling elites..

Both corrupt......

Why not more talk about Zelensky and his Mates taking money out of the Country..Locking up opposition leaders and silencing pro opposition radio and TV voices...

Not heard anything about these claims so whilst I'm not saying they are untrue, I'd like to see you back up your accusations with some proof.
Pretty sure if the Ukraine govt were as bad as you say then support be a little less than it is.