Poo tin... Put@in...

pblakeney

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

Show of force and intent.

Yeah, but the horse has bolted and it now seems less necessary. Forces are required but if Putin is getting his asshanded to him then raising the numbers is questionable.

NATO peiodically builds up shitloads of forces in the region to massive numbers.

2017 was a huge one, was meant to happen last year but got canned due to Covid.

Yeah, I know someone over there. Point was the mixed messages and why are the high numbers needed if some well equipped farmers are winning.

MattFalle

pblakeney said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

Show of force and intent.

Yeah, but the horse has bolted and it now seems less necessary. Forces are required but if Putin is getting his asshanded to him then raising the numbers is questionable.

NATO peiodically builds up shitloads of forces in the region to massive numbers.

2017 was a huge one, was meant to happen last year but got canned due to Covid.

Yeah, I know someone over there. Point was the mixed messages and why are the high numbers needed if some well equipped farmers are winning.

because its a mixture of stuff thats been planned for years and stuff related to this.

a lot of this is purely operational.

new bods have just gone into Cyprus but no one's expecting a scrap there.

surrey_commuter

shirley_basso said:

A constant reminder that this is only going in one direction and it's a good way for NATO to 'show up' without showing up (for understandable reasons)

Not being obtuse but what is that direction?

I still 4 options;
Ceasefire with Ukraine losing lots of land
Ukraine lose all land east of Dnieper
Borders return to last year
Borders return to pre 2014

shirley_basso

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

johngti

The last two won't be part of any discussions, pretty certain about that. My money would be on the second option (eventually, I hope). The key point will be when we start seeing western leaders begin to moderate their language to a less "macho" tone to ease the transition to non-war (peace might be a bit of a stretch for now).

Pross

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

Show of force and intent.

Yeah, but the horse has bolted and it now seems less necessary. Forces are required but if Putin is getting his asshanded to him then raising the numbers is questionable.

NATO peiodically builds up shitloads of forces in the region to massive numbers.

2017 was a huge one, was meant to happen last year but got canned due to Covid.

Yeah, I know someone over there. Point was the mixed messages and why are the high numbers needed if some well equipped farmers are winning.

because its a mixture of stuff thats been planned for years and stuff related to this.

a lot of this is purely operational.

new bods have just gone into Cyprus but no one's expecting a scrap there.

Not sure about that, a load of beered up British tourists will be hitting Ayia Napa soon

MattFalle

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

Show of force and intent.

Yeah, but the horse has bolted and it now seems less necessary. Forces are required but if Putin is getting his asshanded to him then raising the numbers is questionable.

NATO peiodically builds up shitloads of forces in the region to massive numbers.

2017 was a huge one, was meant to happen last year but got canned due to Covid.

Yeah, I know someone over there. Point was the mixed messages and why are the high numbers needed if some well equipped farmers are winning.

because its a mixture of stuff thats been planned for years and stuff related to this.

a lot of this is purely operational.

new bods have just gone into Cyprus but no one's expecting a scrap there.

Not sure about that, a load of beered up British tourists will be hitting Ayia Napa soon

AN is OOB

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

MattFalle said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

Show of force and intent.

Yeah, but the horse has bolted and it now seems less necessary. Forces are required but if Putin is getting his asshanded to him then raising the numbers is questionable.

NATO peiodically builds up shitloads of forces in the region to massive numbers.

2017 was a huge one, was meant to happen last year but got canned due to Covid.

Yeah, I know someone over there. Point was the mixed messages and why are the high numbers needed if some well equipped farmers are winning.

because its a mixture of stuff thats been planned for years and stuff related to this.

a lot of this is purely operational.

new bods have just gone into Cyprus but no one's expecting a scrap there.

Not sure about that, a load of beered up British tourists will be hitting Ayia Napa soon

AN is OOB - always has been.

SOP.

but yup - soon Kaylen, Jayden and Twatyn will be wearing their footy shirts, matching t shirts and Primark shirts and upholding the fine reputation of Brits on holiday in the sun.

MattFalle

johngti said:

The last two won't be part of any discussions, pretty certain about that. My money would be on the second option (eventually, I hope). The key point will be when we start seeing western leaders begin to moderate their language to a less "macho" tone to ease the transition to non-war (peace might be a bit of a stretch for now).

western leaders are not being "macho"

for once they are being firm with someone who started an illegal war and is killing women and children indiscriminently

First.Aspect

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

johngti

MattFalle said:

johngti said:

The last two won't be part of any discussions, pretty certain about that. My money would be on the second option (eventually, I hope). The key point will be when we start seeing western leaders begin to moderate their language to a less "macho" tone to ease the transition to non-war (peace might be a bit of a stretch for now).

western leaders are not being "macho"

for once they are being firm with someone who started an illegal war and is killing women and children indiscriminently

Yeah, macho is the wrong word but I'm laid up in bed off work so throw me a bone, man (that's why it was in inverted commas)! What I was trying to say is that its the way of diplomacy to start using language that opens up the chance for dialogue. That can still be firm and no-nonsense though.

I do think that some of the language Johnson has used has been jingoistic and unnecessary though, not to mention some of the comments from Truss early doors.

Sorry for not making myself more clear,

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much. They also have an old population, so for a lot of them, there's been a 20-30 year window and now its back to normal. Also, my impression is that there are several Russias. There is the urban and relatively modern part in the west, and then there is the rest that is so far from Moscow that the last 30 years hasn't made much of a difference anyway.

So overall I'm not optimistic that there will change from within.

john80

johngti said:

The last two won't be part of any discussions, pretty certain about that. My money would be on the second option (eventually, I hope). The key point will be when we start seeing western leaders begin to moderate their language to a less "macho" tone to ease the transition to non-war (peace might be a bit of a stretch for now).

Of SC's 4 options I don't see why any restrictions would be lifted unless the fourth option is the way out for Russia. They are flailing about in Ukraine and quite frankly nothing other than a complete capitulation for Putin should be acceptable to the West. For example how can he even leave Russia now to engage with the world with clamours for trying him as a war criminal. Which Western leaders would want to stand on a stage and shake hands with that.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

First.Aspect

john80 said:

johngti said:

The last two won't be part of any discussions, pretty certain about that. My money would be on the second option (eventually, I hope). The key point will be when we start seeing western leaders begin to moderate their language to a less "macho" tone to ease the transition to non-war (peace might be a bit of a stretch for now).

Of SC's 4 options I don't see why any restrictions would be lifted unless the fourth option is the way out for Russia. They are flailing about in Ukraine and quite frankly nothing other than a complete capitulation for Putin should be acceptable to the West. For example how can he even leave Russia now to engage with the world with clamours for trying him as a war criminal. Which Western leaders would want to stand on a stage and shake hands with that.

This should be the case, in reality it's a sliding scale. There are too many vested interests for the Swift ban to be maintained for long, for example.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much. They also have an old population, so for a lot of them, there's been a 20-30 year window and now its back to normal. Also, my impression is that there are several Russias. There is the urban and relatively modern part in the west, and then there is the rest that is so far from Moscow that the last 30 years hasn't made much of a difference anyway.

So overall I'm not optimistic that there will change from within.

agree, however re generational demographic the traditional babushka is now dying out, you've had 40 years since perestroika, opening of markets, travel, etc - freedoms that slowly built up to be the norm have now been snatched away in one hit.

They've also lost the little niceities of life, like sport, theatre, concerts, etc that may seem minor overall but all add up to a quality of life. The opium for the masses has been removed

After all, if you have no food, no fuel, crapweather, nothing to entertain you, you're gonna get miffed.

Plus you can't travel anywhere, study anywhere, no films, etc

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

Brits really are an island mentality and I think they often forget how much being an island affects the collective psyche, not least in this context as the threat of invasion is always a long long way away.

But in that context I think the Brits militarily anyway are fairly stoic. It's a professional army and we can slate it till the cows come home (and I certainly have, especially their performance in Afghanistan), but I think the actual men (and women) themselves are a pretty hardy lot, even if the support, kit and leadership is lacking.

Brits are a warrior nation.

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much. They also have an old population, so for a lot of them, there's been a 20-30 year window and now its back to normal. Also, my impression is that there are several Russias. There is the urban and relatively modern part in the west, and then there is the rest that is so far from Moscow that the last 30 years hasn't made much of a difference anyway.

So overall I'm not optimistic that there will change from within.

agree, however re generational demographic the traditional babushka is now dying out, you've had 40 years since perestroika, opening of markets, travel, etc - freedoms that slowly built up to be the norm have now been snatched away in one hit.

They've also lost the little niceities of life, like sport, theatre, concerts, etc that may seem minor overall but all add up to a quality of life. The opium for the masses has been removed

After all, if you have no food, no fuel, crapweather, nothing to entertain you, you're gonna get miffed.

Plus you can't travel anywhere, study anywhere, no films, etc

You make it sound a lot like Scotland during covid.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

Brits really are an island mentality and I think they often forget how much being an island affects the collective psyche, not least in this context as the threat of invasion is always a long long way away.

But in that context I think the Brits militarily anyway are fairly stoic. It's a professional army and we can slate it till the cows come home (and I certainly have, especially their performance in Afghanistan), but I think the actual men (and women) themselves are a pretty hardy lot, even if the support, kit and leadership is lacking.

Brits are a warrior nation.

wtaf are you on about Rick?

And pray, tell me your opinion on the performance Afghan. I'm intrigued to read your insights.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much. They also have an old population, so for a lot of them, there's been a 20-30 year window and now its back to normal. Also, my impression is that there are several Russias. There is the urban and relatively modern part in the west, and then there is the rest that is so far from Moscow that the last 30 years hasn't made much of a difference anyway.

So overall I'm not optimistic that there will change from within.

agree, however re generational demographic the traditional babushka is now dying out, you've had 40 years since perestroika, opening of markets, travel, etc - freedoms that slowly built up to be the norm have now been snatched away in one hit.

They've also lost the little niceities of life, like sport, theatre, concerts, etc that may seem minor overall but all add up to a quality of life. The opium for the masses has been removed

After all, if you have no food, no fuel, crapweather, nothing to entertain you, you're gonna get miffed.

Plus you can't travel anywhere, study anywhere, no films, etc

You make it sound a lot like Scotland during covid.

At least they had TDNFNATN

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

Mainly Russia not winning. As for the final details, I agree with your outcomes.

Everything other than the last option is a "win" for Russia. Even if they are a shambles now, how long before they go away, skim off as much of the economy as they need to for military spending (the population doesn't matter, right?) and return stronger, in the knowledge that war = bigger Russia?

tbh, i'm intrigued to see how this whole thing affects/changes Russia in the long term - after all, this will the first time this educated, social media savvy, westernised generation will have had no internet, no credit cards, massive shortages, oligarchs losing assets, economy crumbling, 10,000 plus dead soldiers.......

lot of senior military dead, a lot going off the scene, Putin allegedly losing support, people libbing Molotovs at the Kremlin.....

If this isn't a massive opportunity for the Western powers to start spreading dissent through subtle means I don't know what is tbh....

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much. They also have an old population, so for a lot of them, there's been a 20-30 year window and now its back to normal. Also, my impression is that there are several Russias. There is the urban and relatively modern part in the west, and then there is the rest that is so far from Moscow that the last 30 years hasn't made much of a difference anyway.

So overall I'm not optimistic that there will change from within.

agree, however re generational demographic the traditional babushka is now dying out, you've had 40 years since perestroika, opening of markets, travel, etc - freedoms that slowly built up to be the norm have now been snatched away in one hit.

They've also lost the little niceities of life, like sport, theatre, concerts, etc that may seem minor overall but all add up to a quality of life. The opium for the masses has been removed

After all, if you have no food, no fuel, crapweather, nothing to entertain you, you're gonna get miffed.

Plus you can't travel anywhere, study anywhere, no films, etc

You make it sound a lot like Scotland during covid.

At least they had TDNFNATN

You've lost me.

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

Brits really are an island mentality and I think they often forget how much being an island affects the collective psyche, not least in this context as the threat of invasion is always a long long way away.

But in that context I think the Brits militarily anyway are fairly stoic. It's a professional army and we can slate it till the cows come home (and I certainly have, especially their performance in Afghanistan), but I think the actual men (and women) themselves are a pretty hardy lot, even if the support, kit and leadership is lacking.

Brits are a warrior nation.

wtaf are you on about Rick?

And pray, tell me your opinion on the performance Afghan. I'm intrigued to read your insights.

Not really mine.

A whole host of analysis has popped up since the end of the war, including two fairly well drawn out books.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/changing-of-the-guard-simon-akam-review-british-army-book > for example

There seems to be a consensus amongst defence analysts that it was generally a failure on a number of levels.

First.Aspect

I think you need to move back towards the FT as your main news source. Your calibration seems off. Too many what's?.

TheBigBean

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

Brits really are an island mentality and I think they often forget how much being an island affects the collective psyche, not least in this context as the threat of invasion is always a long long way away.

But in that context I think the Brits militarily anyway are fairly stoic. It's a professional army and we can slate it till the cows come home (and I certainly have, especially their performance in Afghanistan), but I think the actual men (and women) themselves are a pretty hardy lot, even if the support, kit and leadership is lacking.

Brits are a warrior nation.

wtaf are you on about Rick?

And pray, tell me your opinion on the performance Afghan. I'm intrigued to read your insights.

Failure to read the history books.

pinno

surrey_commuter said:

shirley_basso said:

A constant reminder that this is only going in one direction and it's a good way for NATO to 'show up' without showing up (for understandable reasons)

Not being obtuse but what is that direction?

I still 4 options;
Ceasefire with Ukraine losing lots of land
Ukraine lose all land east of Dnieper
Borders return to last year
Borders return to pre 2014

Option 5:
Japan lobs a few missiles at Vladivostok.
Also, tell the Taliban that there's women being educated in Southern Russia.

thegreatdivide

A big Russian amphibious assault ship has just gone BANG in Berdyansk harbour. Ukraine are claiming the kill.

https://twitter.com/andersostlund/status/1506883095848357893?s=21

surrey_commuter

pinno said:

surrey_commuter said:

shirley_basso said:

A constant reminder that this is only going in one direction and it's a good way for NATO to 'show up' without showing up (for understandable reasons)

Not being obtuse but what is that direction?

I still 4 options;
Ceasefire with Ukraine losing lots of land
Ukraine lose all land east of Dnieper
Borders return to last year
Borders return to pre 2014

Option 5:
Japan lobs a few missiles at Vladivostok.
Also, tell the Taliban that there's women being educated in Southern Russia.

building up offensive capability on Russia's borders would stop him from reallocating troops to Ukraine.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Me too, but I don't have enough understanding of the country or its history. As a whole they seem a lot more stoic than us lot, I know that much.

What makes you say that? I'm all for dumping on Brits, but I really don't think this is deserved.

People are people, but they've had a bit more to put up with over the years so are more tempered, perhaps.

Brits really are an island mentality and I think they often forget how much being an island affects the collective psyche, not least in this context as the threat of invasion is always a long long way away.

But in that context I think the Brits militarily anyway are fairly stoic. It's a professional army and we can slate it till the cows come home (and I certainly have, especially their performance in Afghanistan), but I think the actual men (and women) themselves are a pretty hardy lot, even if the support, kit and leadership is lacking.

Brits are a warrior nation.

wtaf are you on about Rick?

And pray, tell me your opinion on the performance Afghan. I'm intrigued to read your insights.

Not really mine.

A whole host of analysis has popped up since the end of the war, including two fairly well drawn out books.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/changing-of-the-guard-simon-akam-review-british-army-book > for example

There seems to be a consensus amongst defence analysts that it was generally a failure on a number of levels.

no - you stated you have opinions and that ypu stayed them in the past and I'm intrigued to hear them.

The floor is yours.

MattFalle

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

surrey_commuter said:

shirley_basso said:

A constant reminder that this is only going in one direction and it's a good way for NATO to 'show up' without showing up (for understandable reasons)

Not being obtuse but what is that direction?

I still 4 options;
Ceasefire with Ukraine losing lots of land
Ukraine lose all land east of Dnieper
Borders return to last year
Borders return to pre 2014

Option 5:
Japan lobs a few missiles at Vladivostok.
Also, tell the Taliban that there's women being educated in Southern Russia.

building up offensive capability on Russia's borders would stop him from reallocating troops to Ukraine.

only if he thinks you'll move in which he knows NATO won't.