Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[youngsyr]

BikeBikeBIke said:

youngsyr said:

I'll do the reading and quoting for you then, I guess?

£12bn in direct military aid plus the cost of the energy sanctions, which are?

We can reverse the economic damage done by the war itself. We pay the global rate for energy, we can't just say to Russia 'we'll buy energy from you at Jan 22 prices.

I can't find a number for the economic costs of the war itself, but it will clearly be astronomical and open ended. There will need to be some kind of Marshall Plan as well. Of course we can't avoid any of those costs, there aren't optional, they're happening whatever we do.

BUT... The fact the war is mindblowing expensive for us in economic terms is a very good reason not let Putin achieve his aims and invite Putin to do it again.

The £12bn looks very cheap if it saves us £80bn plus the lives of our kids in future. (I'm pretty sure 12bn is a replacement cost, the cost of second hand tanks isn't that high.)

So, you're dodging the question on the support provided by the UK government to us for sky high energy costs in response to the sanctions imposed on Russia?

Again, I'll do the work for you: £60bn (ish and rising). So you're looking at over £70bn that this war has cost us so far, or roughly £1,000 for every man woman and child in the country.

https://obr.uk/box/the-cost-of-the-governments-ene...

Now, on to your next argument:

(1) You have no idea what the future advantages of this spend are, you've simply made up £80bn. It could as well be £nil or even negative if Russia decides to attack British assets in revenge for our participation.

(2) You (and no-one else on here) has shown that we wouldn't get precisely the same result whether we'd spent the £12bn in military aid or not.

[BikeBikeBIke]

youngsyr said:

So, you're dodging the question on the support provided by the UK government to us for sky high energy costs in response to the sanctions imposed on Russia?

Again, I'll do the work for you: £60bn (ish and rising). So you're looking at over £70bn that this war has cost us so far, or roughly £1,000 for every man woman and child in the country.

https://obr.uk/box/the-cost-of-the-governments-ene...

Now, on to your next argument:

(1) You have no idea what the future advantages of this spend are, you've simply made up £80bn. It could as well be £nil or even negative if Russia decides to attack British assets in revenge for our participation.

(2) You (and no-one else on here) has shown that we wouldn't get precisely the same result whether we'd spent the £12bn in military aid or not.

I made up 80bn as the cost, not the advantage. There's no advantage to a war for either side, which is why we want to deter the next one. Looks like I was *way* short. It's 70bn before you even consider the rebuild and the rest of the war which could go on for years. Plus we can't ever become reliant on Russian energy again. But does it matter? We can't back out of the costs of the war.

Sadly we don't have a control Ukraine to see if aid has helped them or not but the Russians are doing better since aid has slowed so I'm gonna bet it has made a difference.

[CarlosFandango11]

Oliver Hardy said:

Slightly off topic, glide bombs. Was watching a bit on the news about Russia adopting old bombs to glide bombs, they deploy them from a high altitude inside Russia and the Ukrainians can not move their SAM systems to shoot down the aircraft because they will be in danger from attack. They said they are highly accurate and use GPS, how can a glide bomb be accurate if it has no engine or mechanise to propel or steer it, while in my thick head says you can calculate the inpact of the bomb surely it can only be a rough estimate where it lands and the higher you launch it and further away the less accurate it wil be???

Glide bombs do have a mechanism to steer them.

[youngsyr]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I made up 80bn as the cost, not the advantage. There's no advantage to a war for either side, which is why we want to deter the next one. Looks like I was *way* short. It's 70bn before you even consider the rebuild and the rest of the war which could go on for years. Plus we can't ever become reliant on Russian energy again. But does it matter? We can't back out of the costs of the war.

Sadly we don't have a control Ukraine to see if aid has helped them or not but the Russians are doing better since aid has slowed so I'm gonna bet it has made a difference.

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

[BikeBikeBIke]

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I don't think letting others pay our share is a reasonable I also suspect we encouraged others to donate with our aid.

Territorial stalemate. If the Ukranians are being ground down they could fall apart. So territory doesn't tell us everything.

[ben5575]

youngsyr said:

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

Unlike trying to argue that we shouldn't be trying to end the war in Ukraine sooner because we've spent a lot of money subsidising the costs of energy caused by the war in Ukraine.

[hidetheelephants]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Oliver Hardy said:

Slightly off topic, glide bombs. Was watching a bit on the news about Russia adopting old bombs to glide bombs, they deploy them from a high altitude inside Russia and the Ukrainians can not move their SAM systems to shoot down the aircraft because they will be in danger from attack. They said they are highly accurate and use GPS, how can a glide bomb be accurate if it has no engine or mechanise to propel or steer it, while in my thick head says you can calculate the inpact of the bomb surely it can only be a rough estimate where it lands and the higher you launch it and further away the less accurate it wil be???

Glide bombs do have a mechanism to steer them.

It's the russian equivalent of the US JDAM, a kit of bits that bolts onto a dumb bomb to convert it into a smart bomb with wings and a sat nav guidance system.

[youngsyr]

ben5575 said:

youngsyr said:

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

Unlike trying to argue that we shouldn't be trying to end the war in Ukraine sooner because we've spent a lot of money subsidising the costs of energy caused by the war in Ukraine.

You're assuming we're currently trying to end the war.

That's an unsupported assumption.

[youngsyr]

BikeBikeBIke said:

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I don't think letting others pay our share is a reasonable I also suspect we encouraged others to donate with our aid.

Territorial stalemate. If the Ukranians are being ground down they could fall apart. So territory doesn't tell us everything.

What is "our share" exactly?

That's a figment of your imagination, not mine.

Territory might not tell us everything, but it's certainly telling us that significantly less aid doesn't equal a defeat for Ukraine.

[spookly]

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I was going to respond to your points. But then decided it's a pointless endeavour.
If you can't understand why it's in all of Europe's (continental Europe, not the EU) interests not to let russia be expansionist and conquer it's near neighbours then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

[youngsyr]

spookly said:

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I was going to respond to your points. But then decided it's a pointless endeavour.
If you can't understand why it's in all of Europe's (continental Europe, not the EU) interests not to let russia be expansionist and conquer it's near neighbours then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

But you could be bothered to type out a nothing response having a dig? Very superior of you.

On my part, I'm absolutely gutted to hear you won't be replying to me anymore, I'm sure I had much to learn from you.

Ok, bye bye now.

[spookly]

youngsyr said:

spookly said:

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I was going to respond to your points. But then decided it's a pointless endeavour.
If you can't understand why it's in all of Europe's (continental Europe, not the EU) interests not to let russia be expansionist and conquer it's near neighbours then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

But you could be bothered to type out a nothing response having a dig? Very superior of you.

On my part, I'm absolutely gutted to hear you won't be replying to me anymore, I'm sure I had much to learn from you.

Ok, bye bye now.

I very much doubt you'll learn anything from anyone. I've seen your responses, you're just doubling down each time.

A dig is sometimes deserved.

[youngsyr]

spookly said:

youngsyr said:

spookly said:

youngsyr said:

Again, you're implying the UK is the only one providing military aid to Ukraine, when we're actually a small fraction.

You're also assuming that no-one else would step in to provide the aid we withheld in the hypothetical situation.

Finally the aid slow down hasn't made any real difference in the conflict - some territory has been lost, but it's essentially a stalemate now, so again not evidence that less aid means a win for Russia, quite the opposite.

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

I was going to respond to your points. But then decided it's a pointless endeavour.
If you can't understand why it's in all of Europe's (continental Europe, not the EU) interests not to let russia be expansionist and conquer it's near neighbours then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

But you could be bothered to type out a nothing response having a dig? Very superior of you.

On my part, I'm absolutely gutted to hear you won't be replying to me anymore, I'm sure I had much to learn from you.

Ok, bye bye now.

I very much doubt you'll learn anything from anyone. I've seen your responses, you're just doubling down each time.

A dig is sometimes deserved.

Oh, so you can be bothered to reply, but only if you can get a dig in?

How very dignified and superior.

Does this mean that we're friends again? I'm so very happy!

[CharlesdeGaulle]

spookly said:

I very much doubt you'll learn anything from anyone. I've seen your responses, you're just doubling down each time.

A dig is sometimes deserved.

He's best ignored. Whilst he's clearly a strategic mastermind anyone that disagrees is a fool.

[youngsyr]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

spookly said:

I very much doubt you'll learn anything from anyone. I've seen your responses, you're just doubling down each time.

A dig is sometimes deserved.

He's best ignored. Whilst he's clearly a strategic mastermind anyone that disagrees is a fool.

Lemmings are back again. How's the view?

[CaiosH]

BikeBikeBIke said:

We're a mixed ability group, for sure.

[Digga]

CaiosH said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

We're a mixed ability group, for sure.

I'm not.

[borcy]

youngsyr said:

ben5575 said:

youngsyr said:

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

Unlike trying to argue that we shouldn't be trying to end the war in Ukraine sooner because we've spent a lot of money subsidising the costs of energy caused by the war in Ukraine.

You're assuming we're currently trying to end the war.

That's an unsupported assumption.

What do you think we're trying to do?
What should we be doing?

[BikeBikeBIke]

Digga said:

CaiosH said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

We're a mixed ability group, for sure.

I'm not.

[youngsyr]

borcy said:

youngsyr said:

ben5575 said:

youngsyr said:

So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.

Unlike trying to argue that we shouldn't be trying to end the war in Ukraine sooner because we've spent a lot of money subsidising the costs of energy caused by the war in Ukraine.

You're assuming we're currently trying to end the war.

That's an unsupported assumption.

What do you think we're trying to do?
What should we be doing?

Who knows what the actual plan behind closed doors is, you claimed to know it was trying to end the war sooner and I pointed out that you don't know that.

I suspect its much more likely that out government are kicking the can down the road and expecting it to be someone else's problem within a year.

What should we be doing? I suggest making all the right noises and loudly proclaiming our support for Ukraine, whilst cutting the actual cost to as close to zero as possible.