Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
borcy said:
They seem pretty sluggish in response to me, lots of meetings not enough in the way of action.
Oh god yeah. It's woeful and too slow. (Perhaps to the point of disaster.) But I reckon Europe have finally worked out if they don't step up nobody else will.CivicDuties said:
The "West" wanted nothing but for Russia to become a normalised, grown-up, operationally functional and peaceful, peacable country to whom we could sell our consumer products and services and from whom we could buy natural resources. That is the reason for such things (amongst others) as German foreign policy between the 90s and the 20s, that gambled on this situation unfolding and on Putin being the man who would bring about this situation. they were catastrophically wrong as it turns out, but you can see where they were coming from.
Not one single country in the West or NATO wanted a conflict with Russia, either by proxy or directly. There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. NATO has not been "expanding", it has been accepting applications from countries such as the Baltic States who had a different perspective on Russia to such countries as Germany and who harboured a mistrust of them and sought to mitigate the risk of Russian aggression, and how right they have been proven.
So no, this is not a proxy conflict at all, and to characterise it as such shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of the situation - or a will to stir the pot and promote misinformation and contrarianism for its own sake, or for personal benefit (looking at the likes of George Galloway here).
Or you mean 'the west' wanted nothing but for russia (and china) to accept the US centric hegemonic view of the world and to align their world view to be subservient that. Which of course as you said turned out wrong but equally, whether one could or should reasonably think that russia and china would do ever be content to always do so was a little less obvious especially in chinese's case with their rising economic clout. Not one single country in the West or NATO wanted a conflict with Russia, either by proxy or directly. There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. NATO has not been "expanding", it has been accepting applications from countries such as the Baltic States who had a different perspective on Russia to such countries as Germany and who harboured a mistrust of them and sought to mitigate the risk of Russian aggression, and how right they have been proven.
So no, this is not a proxy conflict at all, and to characterise it as such shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of the situation - or a will to stir the pot and promote misinformation and contrarianism for its own sake, or for personal benefit (looking at the likes of George Galloway here).
As far as a proxy conflict is concerned, well, afghanistan in the 80s was called one as well as some of the african conflicts in the 80s (mozambique and angola I'm thinking about). Why should Ukraine now be any different?
isaldiri said:
Or you mean 'the west' wanted nothing but for russia (and china) to accept the US centric hegemonic view of the world and to align their world view to be subservient that. Which of course as you said turned out wrong but equally, whether one could or should reasonably think that russia and china would do ever be content to always do so was a little less obvious especially in chinese's case with their rising economic clout.
As far as a proxy conflict is concerned, well, afghanistan in the 80s was called one as well as some of the african conflicts in the 80s (mozambique and angola I'm thinking about). Why should Ukraine now be any different?
In fairness, if China or Russia want to participate in free markets that were born on the back of western democracy, then yes, it does dictate they follow the lead. Sure, we should be critical of US foreign policy, but expecting access to western money and markets whilst wanting to continue to align in opposition to the single biggest democracy is a failure to understand the fundamentals.As far as a proxy conflict is concerned, well, afghanistan in the 80s was called one as well as some of the african conflicts in the 80s (mozambique and angola I'm thinking about). Why should Ukraine now be any different?
In truth, the west were daft to think these countries could even attempt to be 'a little bit free market' whilst being so utterly self-centered and undemocratic. Daft and greedy. Of course we all hoped, some of us with greater expectation than others, that there was money to be made (or laundered in the case of some FS) from the gamble.
The UK might supply Ukraine with it's latest laser weapon , Dragonfly.
https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
Why on earth would you send your latest top secret weapon to a country filled to the brim with ruskie sympathisers and agents? Give them bombs, tanks, and everything else they need but you really don't want this falling in to russian hands.
If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Why on earth would you send your latest top secret weapon to a country filled to the brim with ruskie sympathisers and agents? Give them bombs, tanks, and everything else they need but you really don't want this falling in to russian hands.
If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
What better way to test though?If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
PRTVR said:
The UK might supply Ukraine with it's latest laser weapon , Dragonfly.
https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
Pros and cons.https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
Digga said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
Why on earth would you send your latest top secret weapon to a country filled to the brim with ruskie sympathisers and agents? Give them bombs, tanks, and everything else they need but you really don't want this falling in to russian hands.
If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
What better way to test though?If they do I'd imagine it would be operated and guarded by UK SF.
I'd certainly take the risk, it will never be needed more.
Digga said:
In fairness, if China or Russia want to participate in free markets that were born on the back of western democracy, then yes, it does dictate they follow the lead. Sure, we should be critical of US foreign policy, but expecting access to western money and markets whilst wanting to continue to align in opposition to the single biggest democracy is a failure to understand the fundamentals.
In truth, the west were daft to think these countries could even attempt to be 'a little bit free market' whilst being so utterly self-centered and undemocratic. Daft and greedy. Of course we all hoped, some of us with greater expectation than others, that there was money to be made (or laundered in the case of some FS) from the gamble.
hm... it kind of depends. participation in western markets does dictate one is (more or less) happy to just fall in line with the US dictated 'international rules-based order' as you say - at least as far as not looking to actively oppose US interests is concerned as being self centered and undemocratic (plus possibly being quite a lot more unpleasant) isn't a problem. In truth, the west were daft to think these countries could even attempt to be 'a little bit free market' whilst being so utterly self-centered and undemocratic. Daft and greedy. Of course we all hoped, some of us with greater expectation than others, that there was money to be made (or laundered in the case of some FS) from the gamble.
The expectation that being able to make lots of money (clean and dirty) would align everyone sufficiently that there wouldn't be an incentive wouldn't rock the boat was understandable (especially for europe who have themselves been supplanted by the US from their own positions of power since the early 20th century, especially here in the UK for example) but it rather also did ignore human nature in expecting the likes of china to forever be happy to follow in the shadow of the US I suppose....
isaldiri said:
Digga said:
In fairness, if China or Russia want to participate in free markets that were born on the back of western democracy, then yes, it does dictate they follow the lead. Sure, we should be critical of US foreign policy, but expecting access to western money and markets whilst wanting to continue to align in opposition to the single biggest democracy is a failure to understand the fundamentals.
In truth, the west were daft to think these countries could even attempt to be 'a little bit free market' whilst being so utterly self-centered and undemocratic. Daft and greedy. Of course we all hoped, some of us with greater expectation than others, that there was money to be made (or laundered in the case of some FS) from the gamble.
hm... it kind of depends. participation in western markets does dictate one is (more or less) happy to just fall in line with the US dictated 'international rules-based order' as you say - at least as far as not looking to actively oppose US interests is concerned as being self centered and undemocratic (plus possibly being quite a lot more unpleasant) isn't a problem. In truth, the west were daft to think these countries could even attempt to be 'a little bit free market' whilst being so utterly self-centered and undemocratic. Daft and greedy. Of course we all hoped, some of us with greater expectation than others, that there was money to be made (or laundered in the case of some FS) from the gamble.
The expectation that being able to make lots of money (clean and dirty) would align everyone sufficiently that there wouldn't be an incentive wouldn't rock the boat was understandable (especially for europe who have themselves been supplanted by the US from their own positions of power since the early 20th century, especially here in the UK for example) but it rather also did ignore human nature in expecting the likes of china to forever be happy to follow in the shadow of the US I suppose....
What Russia, China and, for that matter any other nation - Saudi Arabia etc. - need to understand is, that on a long enough timeline, the implicit expectation and requirement of dealing with the west and, principally, the USA, is that they move toward alignment in democratic and political ideals. Human rights, equality etc. etc. and, in the case of SA, you are starting to see this change. To a degree also, the EU is making and in the position to expect similar.
There's a series on Netflix called something like The Bomb and the Cold War which gives a very good insight into post-Soviet issues and some indication of how Russia got to where it is. It's well worth a watch. There are 9 episodes but the last 3 or 4 have the greatest relevance to this thread.
PRTVR said:
hidetheelephants said:
It's a choice; there are thousands of patriot missiles in the arsenals of NATO states, busy gathering dust. Set them free, preferably in the direction of some russian tin.
The problem is that if it blows up and NATO gets involved they are going to be needed to protect critical infrastructure in Europe, I am sure numbers are being crunched as to the minimum we can cope with and supply Ukraine with rest.Cheib said:
I read somewhere the other day that the US has somewhere close to 1000 Patriot launchers !! Can’t remember how many are in each system but seemed like a huge amount.
They probably have more than that, but the TELs are only part of the system and as with things like the Bradley they may have equipment in storage that's not been updated, not that the ukrainians would give a s
t if they were supplied with a shipload of 1990s vintage SAM batteries.TheJimi said:
PRTVR said:
The UK might supply Ukraine with it's latest laser weapon , Dragonfly.
https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
Pros and cons.https://youtu.be/FMR9vebM1d0?si=pkE49I8aXW4AbfUP
Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 12th April 18:03
TheJimi said:
Pros and cons.
Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
I was reading an article about the US drones supplied to Ukraine and that they have been utterly disastrous. From being easily defeated by electronic warfare to poor field reliability - this has shown that they are unsuitable for real-world situations. Excellent beta testing of course, but we might not want to find out the results.Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
There's a series on Netflix called something like The Bomb and the Cold War which gives a very good insight into post-Soviet issues and some indication of how Russia got to where it is. It's well worth a watch. There are 9 episodes but the last 3 or 4 have the greatest relevance to this thread.
Agreed. Excellent and informative.off_again said:
TheJimi said:
Pros and cons.
Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
I was reading an article about the US drones supplied to Ukraine and that they have been utterly disastrous. From being easily defeated by electronic warfare to poor field reliability - this has shown that they are unsuitable for real-world situations. Excellent beta testing of course, but we might not want to find out the results.Pros - excellent beta testing.
Cons - less than ideal if it ended up in Russian hands.
Some of the biggest aerodynamic advantages in F1 came ‘by mistake’ as a result of rigorous testing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff