Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
1,938
That bridge is enormous. The amount of smoke required to mask it fully ... Well...sure you can see where I'm going. And if it is windy....

Not sure taking out the bridge would do anything?

It would be symbolic, I suppose.

If Russia holds east Ukraine, the bridge isn't necessary for supporting crimea.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
83,180
Nato troops into Ukraine right now or in the very near future would see Putin going to those who are sympathetic to his cause and say "See, I told you, Nato are not just a defensive force, help me"

Nato may end up fighting more than just Russian troops.

Dunno - don't think either China or India are interested in taking on NATO on Russia's behalf, many of the other/smaller countries who might, such as Iran, have problems of their own enough to keep them from committing much (possibly why some of them are suddenly seeing an up-tick in internal problems).
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jun 2020
Posts
2,055
Location
Essex
gLHf8Lv.png
dAMdeQW.png
ycacMCJ.png

ouqBPPZ.png

jmwKxvn.png

uJrgguJ.png
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
83,180
Looks like Kramatorsk will be next big target as the Ukrainian governor has just asked 250,000 people to evacuate

Slovyansk, Kramatorsk and Bakhmut Ukraine won't want to see fall as there is a significant amount of supplies/equipment and defences Ukraine can't quickly replace or relocate there. But at the same time they aren't well served meeting the Russians head on in fighting in this region.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,347
Location
Just to the left of my PC
That does not mean anything many battles have been won but the war was lost. History has a many examples, Russia has no chance in the long run to win, even if the land is taken it will be given back, or Russia will be isolated from the world.

I think that's not true if Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine within the next decade or two. Russia might then be isolated from NATO countries, but there are a lot of countries that aren't in NATO and that want to buy what Russia sells. Russia is primarily an oil and gas company nowadays. If Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, Russia will probably become an industrial agriculture business too. Oil, gas and food will usually trump political concerns, especially when those councerns are about countries unconnected (in either geographical, social or political terms) to your own and there's no threat to your own. India, for example. It's not under threat from Russia and it's not connected to Ukraine in any way. It's government will hedge a bit while the invasion is in progress, but will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia even then. Or China, whose government doesn't even pretend to care. Two massive countries that account for more than a third of the world (in terms of population) and that will buy what Russia's selling. That's very far from being "isolated from the world". They might hedge a bit in public for the benefit of their own businesses selling to NATO countries, especially their own agriculture businesses (which would then be in a much better position for selling to NATO countries, with Ukraine being removed) but they'll buy what Russia sells.

Isolated politically? Why would the Russian government care? They're running a business. It doesn't have to be popular, just profitable. Besides, it's highly unlikely that Russia will be expelled from the UN or even lose any of its power there. So some countries it doesn't sell things to won't publically speak to it. So what?

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the parts of Ukraine Russia is most interested in conquering are the parts with the most oil and gas.

Russia is primarily an oil and gas company. The market for those products is declining (especially in Europe, currently by far Russia's best market) and Russia as it is would decline with it. So it makes sense (in an amoral way) for Russia to steal as much as possible now, while it still has enough money to do so, and use it to make Russia viable as a country without being primarily an oil and gas company. Stealing Ukraine's vast amount of excellent arable land would be part of that, as is stealing as much tech as possible from other countries. Even if Russia currently isn't capable of manufacturing that tech, the knowledge of how to do so is still very valuable. Sure, it might mean that Russian businesses in 2040 are using 2020 tech rather than 2040 tech, but that would be much better for them than using their own 1970s tech in 2040.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
7,693
Location
Shropshire
Excellent post Angilion, very true. One only has to look at how the world still exuberantly trades with China, whilst decrying their alleged human rights abuses and brushing compelling suggestions they covered up a release of the most deadly virus discovered in recent times under the carpet.

It won't be long before your beloved Chinese tat, bought and shown off in a sub forum here, despite sister threads condemning the Chinese for ethnic cleansing and their blatantly stolen and copied tech is sharing your home with fuel sourced from the those the west currently wage a proxy war against.

Once again the evidence is irrefutable that long term stability lies in self sufficiency and a dramatically reduced population level, not unworkable globalisation which is totally contrary to our tribal nature.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,347
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Excellent post Angilion, very true. One only has to look at how the world still exuberantly trades with China, whilst decrying their alleged human rights abuses and brushing compelling suggestions they covered up a release of the most deadly virus discovered in recent times under the carpet.

It won't be long before your beloved Chinese tat, bought and shown off in a sub forum here, despite sister threads condemning the Chinese for ethnic cleansing and their blatantly stolen and copied tech is sharing your home with fuel sourced from the those the west currently wage a proxy war against.

Once again the evidence is irrefutable that long term stability lies in self sufficiency and a dramatically reduced population level, not unworkable globalisation which is totally contrary to our tribal nature.

"our tribal nature" would put the maximum group size at maybe as many as 150 people. Certainly not 70,000,000 people, let alone the far larger population of some other countries.

But apart from that, I broadly agree. Humanity would be much better served as self-sufficient groups choosing to trade surpluses with each other. Perhaps, in time, merging. Or not. The system of globalisation we're all being forced down now is unworkable and bloody dangerous.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
7,693
Location
Shropshire
"our tribal nature" would put the maximum group size at maybe as many as 150 people. Certainly not 70,000,000 people, let alone the far larger population of some other countries.

But apart from that, I broadly agree. Humanity would be much better served as self-sufficient groups choosing to trade surpluses with each other. Perhaps, in time, merging. Or not. The system of globalisation we're all being forced down now is unworkable and bloody dangerous.

The Masai Mara, possibly one of our best known, genuinely still tribal populations, numbered about 2 million, at their last census,
and that's despite them being actively averse to providing even remotely accurate census returns, but I take your point :) And I most certainly agree that the enforced road to globalisation some insist we pursue is madness, economically, socially and ecologically.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Mar 2005
Posts
10,760
"our tribal nature" would put the maximum group size at maybe as many as 150 people. Certainly not 70,000,000 people, let alone the far larger population of some other countries.

But apart from that, I broadly agree. Humanity would be much better served as self-sufficient groups choosing to trade surpluses with each other. Perhaps, in time, merging. Or not. The system of globalisation we're all being forced down now is unworkable and bloody dangerous.
It's a land grab.

I don't see further than that.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jun 2020
Posts
2,055
Location
Essex
c5wMSCw.png
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Top Priority With Blinken’s Meeting With Chinese Foreign Minister Is to Underscore U.S. Commitment to Diplomacy and Maintaining Open Lines of Communication
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Expects Blinken Will Raise Human Rights in Meeting With China’s Wang Yi
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Expects Myanmar to Figure Prominently in Blinken’s Meetings in Asia
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Expects Candid Exchange Between Blinken and China’s Wang Yi on Ukraine
*State Department Spokesperson Ned Price: The Time Now Is Not Right for Blinken to Meet With Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
*State Department Spokesperson Ned Price: U.S. Would Like to See Russia Be Serious About Diplomacy but Has Not Seen That yet
*U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui: G20 Countries Should Hold Russia Accountable and Insist That It Support Ongoing U.N. Efforts to Reopen the Sea Lanes
*U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui: Food and Energy Security Will Figure Very Prominently in G20 Discussions
*U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui: Expects Blinken Will Raise Energy Security in Main G20 Session and in Bilateral Meetings
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
6,665
I think that's not true if Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine within the next decade or two. Russia might then be isolated from NATO countries, but there are a lot of countries that aren't in NATO and that want to buy what Russia sells. Russia is primarily an oil and gas company nowadays. If Russia succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, Russia will probably become an industrial agriculture business too. Oil, gas and food will usually trump political concerns, especially when those councerns are about countries unconnected (in either geographical, social or political terms) to your own and there's no threat to your own. India, for example. It's not under threat from Russia and it's not connected to Ukraine in any way. It's government will hedge a bit while the invasion is in progress, but will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia even then. Or China, whose government doesn't even pretend to care. Two massive countries that account for more than a third of the world (in terms of population) and that will buy what Russia's selling. That's very far from being "isolated from the world". They might hedge a bit in public for the benefit of their own businesses selling to NATO countries, especially their own agriculture businesses (which would then be in a much better position for selling to NATO countries, with Ukraine being removed) but they'll buy what Russia sells.
Yes its only western liberal democracies that are outraged by russias behaviour europe and america (and the outlier, Australia) the rest of the world doesn't care isn't interested and don't have a problem with russia trade or otherwise. Russia is a large country with plenty of borders with non western countries and plenty of outlets for trade including ports in the pacific
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
10,858
Yes its only western liberal democracies that are outraged by russias behaviour europe and america (and the outlier, Australia) the rest of the world doesn't care isn't interested and don't have a problem with russia trade or otherwise. Russia is a large country with plenty of borders with non western countries and plenty of outlets for trade including ports in the pacific

Some of the rest of the world have their own problems to worry about. Africa, for example, still has massive amounts of inequality, poverty, civil unrest and even Islamic terrorism - in the face of the way Africans have to live their lives, they will have little to care about some war in a country they've never heard of and yet the damaged streets of Bucha (or pretty much any other Ukrainian town) are still in better condition than 95% of Africa
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
7 Jun 2020
Posts
2,055
Location
Essex
*Russia’s Medvedev: Japanese Proposal to Cap Russian Oil Price Will Lead to Higher Oil Prices Globally
*Russia’s Medvedev: Oil Prices Could Rise to Over $300-$400 per Barrel
*Russia’s Medvedev: Japan Will Have Neither Oil nor Gas From Russia As a Result
*Japan Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kihara: Aware of Russia Medvedev’s Comment but Won’t Comment on Individual Official’s Remarks
*Japan Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kihara: Actual Price Cap Figure for Russian Oil Will Be Discussed As Necessary Among G7 Members
*Japan Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary: G7 Agreed to Discuss Price Cap, and PM Kishida’s Comments Were Based on That Agreement

ob1PoPj.png
w45Y53c.png
QLsOnJh.png
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2003
Posts
21,460
"our tribal nature" would put the maximum group size at maybe as many as 150 people. Certainly not 70,000,000 people, let alone the far larger population of some other countries.

But apart from that, I broadly agree. Humanity would be much better served as self-sufficient groups choosing to trade surpluses with each other. Perhaps, in time, merging. Or not. The system of globalisation we're all being forced down now is unworkable and bloody dangerous.

However those tribes went to war over (a) resources/land/wealth (b) fear (ie advanced technology or better standard of living) and (b) women/men breeding pool.

Security of 150 people is very low too as to is the capability to invest in programmes larger to benefit the whole.

Globalised single economy has been tried before - the Roman Empire for example. You're right that further from the central seat of power the weaker the influence. Romans also understood that to keep power and authority they needed (a) to build in the local administration and worship into the roman norms and (b) kill those that disagreed. The EU doesn't do a or b, Russia and China simply do b. Therefore they are doomed to fail (well China less so than Russia or EU).

The original European trade was to allow countries to trade better.. Then came the single EU state idea. I'm pro-EU in that I want that capability to trade although I feed that a single EU state is rather like the Roman Empire substituting the bureaucracy for killing.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Apr 2007
Posts
10,674
However those tribes went to war over (a) resources/land/wealth (b) fear (ie advanced technology or better standard of living) and (b) women/men breeding pool.

Security of 150 people is very low too as to is the capability to invest in programmes larger to benefit the whole.

Globalised single economy has been tried before - the Roman Empire for example. You're right that further from the central seat of power the weaker the influence. Romans also understood that to keep power and authority they needed (a) to build in the local administration and worship into the roman norms and (b) kill those that disagreed. The EU doesn't do a or b, Russia and China simply do b. Therefore they are doomed to fail (well China less so than Russia or EU).

The original European trade was to allow countries to trade better.. Then came the single EU state idea. I'm pro-EU in that I want that capability to trade although I feed that a single EU state is rather like the Roman Empire substituting the bureaucracy for killing.

The EU does a better version of "a)". Each member state retains its own govenrment voted for by that country, takes turns in being EU president, and each member states elects it's own MEPs. To represent the members interests.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom