Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[JNW1]

Skeptisk said:

JNW1 said:

I share your frustration to a large extent but I guess the simple answer is there's a greater fear of escalating things with Russia than there is of escalating things with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. Whether that fear of escalation with Russia is well founded is of course another matter and even if it is it begs the question how far do you let Putin go before you finally stand-up to him? There's also the question of whether delaying standing-up to him could actually make it more painful to do so if it eventually comes to a point where you have no choice.

If only we had some history we could draw on to help us understand the potential pitfalls associated with appeasing an aggressive bully.....

From a neutral perspective it is hard not to see the US as an aggressive bully, when you look at what they have done for the last century, particularly post WW2 with invasions, support of dictators, funding and arming terrorists, etc. That isn’t said in support of Putin or Russia but other countries eg China, India, African countries don’t necessarily share your one-sided view of things.

You're right, I do have a one-sided view of things where Ukraine's concerned; from my perspective it's been unprovoked aggression by Russia - and brutal aggression at that - and IMO no amount of whataboutery relating to the US changes that.

As it happens I agree some of what the US have done on the global stage post-WW2 hasn't been terribly positive either (to say the least) but I don't see that as a justification for failing to stand up to Putin's Russia - since when have two or more wrongs made a right?

[Cheib]

Talksteer said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Dragonfire is planned for 2027. Surely it can't be deployed now?

If they've tested a system then it could be possible to relocate test articles and early production items to Ukraine.

There are also lots of differences between a system that you intend to be operated by children (under 25 recruits) in a battlefield and one operated by engineers away from the front line.

Much of the cost and complexity comes from trying to fit a system into a compact platform like a ship or an armoured vehicle. Everything needs to be kept in alignment as the platform moves, systems need to be protected against the environment and threats like blast and fragments.

To demonstrate reliability against all of that requires a great deal of testing which when done to the luxury levels required by today's militaries takes a vast amount of time.

If you deploy it to defend a power station and you have direct contractor support you could deploy it much earlier, basically limited by whatever none commercial off the shelf components there are in it.

Listened to an interview with a journalist on the Telegraph podcast who has been to the test facility and seen the damage it can do. About 12min 30 secs in this. Sounds bloody impressive accurate enough to hit the munition a drone is carrying rather than the drone itself.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ukraine-the-...

[isaldiri]

JNW1 said:

I share your frustration to a large extent but I guess the simple answer is there's a greater fear of escalating things with Russia than there is of escalating things with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. Whether that fear of escalation with Russia is well founded is of course another matter and even if it is it begs the question how far do you let Putin go before you finally stand-up to him? There's also the question of whether delaying standing-up to him could actually make it more painful to do so if it eventually comes to a point where you have no choice.

If only we had some history we could draw on to help us understand the potential pitfalls associated with appeasing an aggressive bully.....

Well, the simple answer is that the israelis are more worthy of intervention and more useful to us than the ukrainians. Just the same way that the ukrainians are more valuable to us than the yemenis or sudanese or <insert wherever you might like where lots of people are getting killed> where we are entirely happy to do little more than to tut tut about all the terrible things happening.

[_Al_]

isaldiri said:

JNW1 said:

I share your frustration to a large extent but I guess the simple answer is there's a greater fear of escalating things with Russia than there is of escalating things with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. Whether that fear of escalation with Russia is well founded is of course another matter and even if it is it begs the question how far do you let Putin go before you finally stand-up to him? There's also the question of whether delaying standing-up to him could actually make it more painful to do so if it eventually comes to a point where you have no choice.

If only we had some history we could draw on to help us understand the potential pitfalls associated with appeasing an aggressive bully.....

Well, the simple answer is that the israelis are more worthy of intervention and more useful to us than the ukrainians. Just the same way that the ukrainians are more valuable to us than the yemenis or sudanese or <insert wherever you might like where lots of people are getting killed> where we are entirely happy to do little more than to tut tut about all the terrible things happening.

You’re describing a ranking system for limited resources based on what matters to the resource owner. What improved alternative do you propose?

[isaldiri]

_Al_ said:

isaldiri said:

JNW1 said:

I share your frustration to a large extent but I guess the simple answer is there's a greater fear of escalating things with Russia than there is of escalating things with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. Whether that fear of escalation with Russia is well founded is of course another matter and even if it is it begs the question how far do you let Putin go before you finally stand-up to him? There's also the question of whether delaying standing-up to him could actually make it more painful to do so if it eventually comes to a point where you have no choice.

If only we had some history we could draw on to help us understand the potential pitfalls associated with appeasing an aggressive bully.....

Well, the simple answer is that the israelis are more worthy of intervention and more useful to us than the ukrainians. Just the same way that the ukrainians are more valuable to us than the yemenis or sudanese or <insert wherever you might like where lots of people are getting killed> where we are entirely happy to do little more than to tut tut about all the terrible things happening.

You’re describing a ranking system for limited resources based on what matters to the resource owner. What improved alternative do you propose?

Skip the pretence about altruism and 'doing the right thing' and simply acknowledge that the end justifies the means and that countries will always act as they see best for their own advantage?

[borcy]

isaldiri said:

Skip the pretence about altruism and 'doing the right thing' and simply acknowledge that the end justifies the means and that countries will always act as they see best for their own advantage?

I think it's a thing all countries pretend about big and small but they all know its a bit of smoke and mirrors.

[_Al_]

isaldiri said:

_Al_ said:

isaldiri said:

JNW1 said:

I share your frustration to a large extent but I guess the simple answer is there's a greater fear of escalating things with Russia than there is of escalating things with Iran and its allies in the Middle East. Whether that fear of escalation with Russia is well founded is of course another matter and even if it is it begs the question how far do you let Putin go before you finally stand-up to him? There's also the question of whether delaying standing-up to him could actually make it more painful to do so if it eventually comes to a point where you have no choice.

If only we had some history we could draw on to help us understand the potential pitfalls associated with appeasing an aggressive bully.....

Well, the simple answer is that the israelis are more worthy of intervention and more useful to us than the ukrainians. Just the same way that the ukrainians are more valuable to us than the yemenis or sudanese or <insert wherever you might like where lots of people are getting killed> where we are entirely happy to do little more than to tut tut about all the terrible things happening.

You’re describing a ranking system for limited resources based on what matters to the resource owner. What improved alternative do you propose?

Skip the pretence about altruism and 'doing the right thing' and simply acknowledge that the end justifies the means and that countries will always act as they see best for their own advantage?

To what end?

[Cheib]

Great article in The Times...touches on US/NATO relationship. There's a great quote from JFK in it from 1963 which you'd think was Trump talking about NATO

"We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the “fat of the land.” We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves"

The storm is gathering, and Europe is still dithering on defending itself

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2646c083-f6fa-4...

[isaldiri]

_Al_ said:

To what end?

Being less obviously two faced and hypocritical for starters? You asked for an alternative - I replied. In any case, you are perhaps the one I should be asking as to why you wanted an 'improved alternative' in the first place because the world is what it is and not going to change being self serving anytime soon.

[_Al_]

isaldiri said:

_Al_ said:

To what end?

Being less obviously two faced and hypocritical for starters? You asked for an alternative - I replied. In any case, you are perhaps the one I should be asking as to why you wanted an 'improved alternative' in the first place because the world is what it is and not going to change being self serving anytime soon.

Yet all your posts seem to bemoan the very fact you state in your last sentence. I’m not having a go, genuinely trying to understand where you’re coming from.

[asfault]

John Connors quote about the human race "not gonna make it" and the terminators response " it's in your nature to destroy yourself.



We look back at history of ww2 ww1 knights and romans etc thinking we are more advanced than they are but humanity hasnt advanced at all just the weapons have...

[isaldiri]

_Al_ said:

isaldiri said:

_Al_ said:

To what end?

Being less obviously two faced and hypocritical for starters? You asked for an alternative - I replied. In any case, you are perhaps the one I should be asking as to why you wanted an 'improved alternative' in the first place because the world is what it is and not going to change being self serving anytime soon.

Yet all your posts seem to bemoan the very fact you state in your last sentence. I’m not having a go, genuinely trying to understand where you’re coming from.

On the contrary, I'm not bemoaning that fact at all. I try to be quite cognisant of what it is however unpleasant it might be for people to accept it because that's to a greater or lesser extent how the world works. A poster earlier asked why we chose to intervene against Iran but not Russia - you might be better off asking why people are bemoaning that we aren't doing anything different tbh.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

isaldiri said:

On the contrary, I'm not bemoaning that fact at all. I try to be quite cognisant of what it is however unpleasant it might be for people to accept it because that's to a greater or lesser extent how the world works. A poster earlier asked why we chose to intervene against Iran but not Russia - you might be better off asking why people are bemoaning that we aren't doing anything different tbh.

I agree with quite a lot of what you post in general, but that's word salad.

[TEKNOPUG]

Cheib said:

Great article in The Times...touches on US/NATO relationship. There's a great quote from JFK in it from 1963 which you'd think was Trump talking about NATO

"We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the “fat of the land.” We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves"

The storm is gathering, and Europe is still dithering on defending itself

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2646c083-f6fa-4...

Europe is USA's biggest export market. That's why they do and will continue to pay for it's military protection. The last thing they want is a military powerful and therefore independent Europe. It's just rhetoric for the domestic market.

[Ridgemont]

isaldiri said:

_Al_ said:

isaldiri said:

_Al_ said:

To what end?

Being less obviously two faced and hypocritical for starters? You asked for an alternative - I replied. In any case, you are perhaps the one I should be asking as to why you wanted an 'improved alternative' in the first place because the world is what it is and not going to change being self serving anytime soon.

Yet all your posts seem to bemoan the very fact you state in your last sentence. I’m not having a go, genuinely trying to understand where you’re coming from.

On the contrary, I'm not bemoaning that fact at all. I try to be quite cognisant of what it is however unpleasant it might be for people to accept it because that's to a greater or lesser extent how the world works. A poster earlier asked why we chose to intervene against Iran but not Russia - you might be better off asking why people are bemoaning that we aren't doing anything different tbh.

I am not sure your postings have been anything like that. If you have stated ‘that’s how the world works’ I may have missed it but on a profound level I still disagree.

Did the UK have a moral motive in WW2: no, options re war or appeasement were equally valid. Once continued self determination kicked it it was existential, but all politicians were informed by dint of being British (or French or Norwegian) regarding their path through it. Their moral compasses played a large role in that from acceptance, through collaboration to preserve an essential component of a nation, to
resistance. Moral and national imperatives can intertwine.

As Churchill made clear, the path of British diplomacy was not a simple national interest: the alternatives were very dark indeed. And that plays out now:

What price a full fledged confrontation between NATO and Russia now?
How far do we let Israel do what it does?
Are we prepared to confront China over its imperialism?
Neverminding over Taiwan but in almost certainty the war to come re the South China Sea?

These may be real politic questions of national interest but also not all actors are benevolent whether it be on western relative values or absolute behaviours.

[borcy]

TEKNOPUG said:

Cheib said:

Great article in The Times...touches on US/NATO relationship. There's a great quote from JFK in it from 1963 which you'd think was Trump talking about NATO

"We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the “fat of the land.” We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves"

The storm is gathering, and Europe is still dithering on defending itself

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2646c083-f6fa-4...

Europe is USA's biggest export market. That's why they do and will continue to pay for it's military protection. The last thing they want is a military powerful and therefore independent Europe. It's just rhetoric for the domestic market.

It's a difficult one for america, they want Europe to pay its way but only if follows it's plans. If it does pony up europe may well make it's own decisions which don't align with the US.

[Prolex-UK]

borcy said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Cheib said:

Great article in The Times...touches on US/NATO relationship. There's a great quote from JFK in it from 1963 which you'd think was Trump talking about NATO

"We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the “fat of the land.” We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves"

The storm is gathering, and Europe is still dithering on defending itself

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2646c083-f6fa-4...

Europe is USA's biggest export market. That's why they do and will continue to pay for it's military protection. The last thing they want is a military powerful and therefore independent Europe. It's just rhetoric for the domestic market.

It's a difficult one for america, they want Europe to pay its way but only if follows it's plans. If it does pony up europe may well make it's own decisions which don't align with the US.

If Trump gets elected it may happen.

Lets move oil prices away from the US dollar as well.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Prolex-UK said:

If Trump gets elected it may happen.

Lets move oil prices away from the US dollar as well.

The Dollar is here to stay and that's a *very* good thing:

https://youtu.be/LiR54FPQiCs?si=YjS9rzegYmkYyywH

[BikeBikeBIke]

borcy said:

It's a difficult one for america, they want Europe to pay its way but only if follows it's plans. If it does pony up europe may well make it's own decisions which don't align with the US.

Only if we follow their plans?

Their plan is to keep as much of the world as free as possible and keep trade free. Britian, as a Island that can't feed itself and has no natural resources, needs free trade more than pretty much anywhere else.

Despots want to end free trade and freedom because they don't want freedom spreading to their countries

If (when?) America goes isolationist Iran, Russia and China are going to fill that void very fast and it will be miserable (fatal?) for us.

We know now America saved us from Russia for 50 years. They're keeping the Gulf open for shipping for us.

I've spent most of my life wishing America would stop being world policeman but the last 2 years have show us how essential they have been amd how it's all going to fall apart when they step away.

South and North Korea tell us everything we need to know about which side we should want to prevail.

[isaldiri]

Prolex-UK said:

Lets move oil prices away from the US dollar as well.

haha. that's just not going to happen while the US is the dominant global superpower.....