Is there going to be a war?

I don't believe Putin wants peace though and he has created a quasi-religious warring cult through the state media that is hell bent on expanding the Russkiy Mir - the Russian "world"

Nicely summed up in an article entitled "The new Russian Cult of War" in the Economist today:


"Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, told The Economist, “If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.” That new Russia is as much a target of Mr Putin’s war as Ukraine is. Its potential must be crushed as surely as Mr Navalny’s.
This crusade against a liberal European future is being fought in the name of Russkiy mir—“the Russian world”, a previously obscure historical term for a Slavic civilisation based on shared ethnicity, religion and heritage. The Putin regime has revived, promulgated and debased this idea into an obscurantist anti-Western mixture of Orthodox dogma, nationalism, conspiracy theory and security-state Stalinism."


Weirdly, Putin has managed to co-opt the previously marginalised Orthodox Church into a nationalist movement and some of his recent speeches have been set up in cathedrals like an American evangelical meeting.

"Elizbar Orlov, a priest in Rostov, a city close to the border with Ukraine, said the Russian army “was cleaning the world of a diabolic infection”.

I believe Putin wants to annexe large swathes of Ukraine so that he has a land corridor to the Crimea which he has already annexed, to decimate the Ukranian economy by controlling access to the Black Sea so that it will never have the capacity to become a "threat" again, to convince the Russian people that they should extend his 20 year leadership even further, and to destroy the Ukranian infrastructure, culture and historical landmarks to subjugate the people and moreover, dilute their national identity.

The only thing that will stop the destruction of Ukraine is if the Ukranians find a way of winning the war and humiliating Putin's army which without a NATO presence on the ground is unlikely.
A few Exocets into the hulls of the Russian Black Sea fleet that is pounding the coastal cities could be arranged surely?

All this bluster about "retaining the nuclear option" is straight out of the Putin playbook and NATO are letting him dictate the terms of the game. But I wonder how the Russian people would feel if they knew that Putin was willing to stake the assured annihilation of every Russian city and it's people on winning?

I fully agree with your last paragraph Lusty. Putins threat of nuclear war has terrified the woke Western leaders, even though in reality he probably has no intention of doing it, nor I suspect would be allowed to by those closest to him. Indeed, I’m not sure even Putin alone has the authority to carry it out?

Instead of cow towing away from him, the only thing Putin understands is force. Instead of supplying just defensive weapons to Ukraine, let’s give them the jets and the tanks they need to put up a real defence of their territory. Bullies like Putin will only be cowed by standing up to them and I’m afraid we’ve already seen that empty threats and embargo’s do nothing to quell him, only force will do that. When will our wimp leaders accept that bankrupting our economies is not helping the situation and either start serious negotiations or start manning up and standing up to him militarily.

We should certainly give them something to sink their ships and bring down their aircraft.
But I'm worried about the effect of the state media campaign in Russia and the cult of Putin.

Most older Russians seem to have complete trust in him and this mass media populist control is their Brexit and Make America Russia Great Again rolled into one - so the majority of Russia's billy big bollocks populist nationalists would probably support nuclear war. Like Brexit and the Trump campaign they haven't really thought through the implications and consequences of their belligerent posturing.

ON FEBRUARY 26TH, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, RIA Novosti, a Russian state-run news agency, accidentally published an article that had been due to run two days into what the Kremlin thought would be a quick and easy war. “Ukraine has returned to Russia,” it boasted. “Did someone in the old European capitals, in Paris and Berlin, seriously believe that Moscow would give up Kiev?” A month into its botched campaign, Russia may be doing just that.

As "negotiations" start again, surely NATO strategists have worked out that Putin is not in a position to withdraw or give any concessions and the minimum he can get away with to save face is the annexation of Donbass, a land route to the Crimea and as much damage as can be inflicted as possible to Ukraine's economy and infrastructure in the time it takes to get his demands met.
The Russian state media can spin anything, but Putin currently doesn't have an acceptable face-saving exit strategy - and that is the core of the issue.

The more I think about it, Ukraine's only real chance is to win the war and that would necessitate inflicting some serious damage on the Russian navy that is shelling the crap out of the south for starters - but NATO is reticent to provide them with the kit to do it.  Why?

By NATO Lusty you are effectively talking about the US and EU, who are terrified that to give the weapons needed to Ukraine to effectively fight off the Russians, might set off WW3. Ridiculous and incorrect assumption in my opinion and just pandering to a struggling Putin. The fact is that giving these weapons to Ukraine would in all likelihood force Putin to the negotiating table but that takes backbone, which we know neither Biden nor the EU have. So the war goes on, more people die, more cities are destroyed whilst the West continues to pour money down the drain in an effort to combat rising costs of food and energy. Give the Ukrainians Polands Mig jets, give them modern tanks and armoury which the Ukrainian forces can handle and let’s see if Putin and his cronies also have the backbone to escalate the war, which I highly doubt.

Just wondering if that following the Russian withdrawal to the South and East whether the Ukranians will be too stretched and outgunned to reclaim the land corridor to the Crimea?
The area is very close to Russian air bases and so far they've not used their air power to any great extent, but that in conjunction with the Russian fleet just off the coast suggests that the Ukranians would get blown to bits if they tried to reclaim the coast - which they need in order to trade.
I'm concerned that if the Ukranians go for it, Russia will bring out the really big bombs and decimate the entire south. Mariupol is a goner.
.

Glad to see that you continue to post undeterred, Lusty. It's good to have open debate on the site about contentious and important issues......as well as the more light-hearted stuff, of course.

okocha wrote:Glad to see that you continue to post undeterred, Lusty. It's good to have open debate on the site about contentious and important issues......as well as the more light-hearted stuff, of course.

Says nuts Hypocriticus Maximus.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Says nuts Hypocriticus Maximus.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say there Bob? If you're having pretensions of an education in the classics then you'd know that if you were attempting to suggest that Okocha is the biggest hypocrite on the forum then you'd apostrophise the "nuts" to indicate the possessive and the latin would be hypocrita maximus.
Alternatively, if you were simply saying that Okocha is a big hypocrite in general, the "nuts" bit makes no sense. I'd stick to reading the beans if I were you.

Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus - or words to that effect.

okocha wrote:Glad to see that you continue to post undeterred, Lusty. It's good to have open debate on the site about contentious and important issues......as well as the more light-hearted stuff, of course.

It's a shame that every time I express a comment or opinion it's shut down by a personally insulting diatribe about what someone who doesn't know me from Adam magically divines what I'm thinking before anyone has a chance to share their own interpretation, so we seldom get the opportunity to debate anything and the site is much poorer for it.

If there was a bit more "I disagree with the points made for the following reasons.." and a bit less focus on attempts to negate what is being said by denegrating the author (aka mud-slinging) this could be a decent forum for people of all persuasions.

It's the mud-slinging that turns people off, not the opinions expressed and I actively encourage people to enlighten us all about their take on things so that we can all get a better understanding of different perspectives and why people think the way they do.

wanderlust wrote:Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus - or words to that effect.

You think Bob is an ambitious ass???

I'm sure that's not what you intended to say was it!!!



Latin
English
Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus
You really are an ambitious ass my friend

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=latin+to+english&source=hp&ei=XLdKYvSbJJW6gAbQ-YGQBw&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYkrFbOoTwDkV7EGRYMwYRuPgmZB9GdWz&oq=latin&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgQIABADMggIABCABBCxAzILCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AIyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoFCC4QgAQ6CwgAEIAEELEDEMkDUABYkxdg7ipoAHAAeACAAbEBiAGmA5IBAzQuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Sluffy wrote:

You think Bob is an ambitious ass???

I'm sure that's not what you intended to say was it!!!



Latin
English
Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus
You really are an ambitious ass my friend

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=latin+to+english&source=hp&ei=XLdKYvSbJJW6gAbQ-YGQBw&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYkrFbOoTwDkV7EGRYMwYRuPgmZB9GdWz&oq=latin&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgQIABADMggIABCABBCxAzILCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AIyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoFCC4QgAQ6CwgAEIAEELEDEMkDUABYkxdg7ipoAHAAeACAAbEBiAGmA5IBAzQuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

And what's the google translate latin for pretentious?

In response to the "Bucha massacre", President Macron calls for an EU ban on Russian coal and oil imports "this week" - although he doesn't mention gas because of the current high dependency level especially in Germany.

The Baltic States have already cut off Russian gas imports and the German Defence Minister has also called for a discussion about cutting off gas - although I can't imagine that will go down well in the Bundestag - at least until alternative supplies can be sourced.

It's a race against time if Europe are going to replace Russian gas so that it has an economic impact on their war effort - and there is a cost implication as LNG is more expensive given that it has to be cooled and then reheated, but if they act on Macron's oil and coal proposal, that would at least have some economic impact.

wanderlust wrote:
Not quite sure what you're trying to say there Bob? If you're having pretensions of an education in the classics then you'd know that if you were attempting to suggest that Okocha is the biggest hypocrite on the forum then you'd apostrophise the "nuts" to indicate the possessive and the latin would be hypocrita maximus.
Alternatively, if you were simply saying that Okocha is a big hypocrite in general, the "nuts" bit makes no sense. I'd stick to reading the beans if I were you.

Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus - or words to that effect.

Couldn't quite grasp it, Lusty?

Neh mind, eh?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

You think Bob is an ambitious ass???

I'm sure that's not what you intended to say was it!!!



Latin
English
Vere es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus
You really are an ambitious ass my friend

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=latin+to+english&source=hp&ei=XLdKYvSbJJW6gAbQ-YGQBw&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYkrFbOoTwDkV7EGRYMwYRuPgmZB9GdWz&oq=latin&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgQIABADMggIABCABBCxAzILCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AIyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoFCC4QgAQ6CwgAEIAEELEDEMkDUABYkxdg7ipoAHAAeACAAbEBiAGmA5IBAzQuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

And what's the google translate latin for pretentious?

Seems how you've used the word in the sentence has changed its meaning.

Vere tu es ambitiosa asinus amicus meus seems to be what you intended to say (according to the translator) and you have missed out the word 'tu' and thus called Bob as 'ambitious' ass.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Couldn't quite grasp it, Lusty?

I obviously need one of your statistically significant spreadsheets to work it out my "best guess" Bob

wanderlust wrote:In response to the "Bucha massacre", President Macron calls for an EU ban on Russian coal and oil imports "this week" - although he doesn't mention gas because of the current high dependency level especially in Germany.

The Baltic States have already cut off Russian gas imports and the German Defence Minister has also called for a discussion about cutting off gas - although I can't imagine that will go down well in the Bundestag - at least until alternative supplies can be sourced.

It's a race against time if Europe are going to replace Russian gas so that it has an economic impact on their war effort - and there is a cost implication as LNG is more expensive given that it has to be cooled and then reheated, but if they act on Macron's oil and coal proposal, that would at least have some economic impact.

It’s easy to criticise the Germans for not cutting off gas supplies from Russia now but the reality is they can’t due to its effect on their country. The damage was done by Merkel in building up the reliance in the first place and leaving them exposed. That Lady has single handedly caused so many problems, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, that are now coming to light that we are seeing the effects through her totally selfish and misguided actions.

Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently made Minister for Brexit Opportunities, which surely means that the topic is current and important, especially as very few benefits for the UK have materialised up to now, the exact opposite in fact.

It is still an ongoing subject for debate in all the newspapers and on TV news outlets so it is surely relevant on here. It has implications for all of us, even if we can't change anything right now.

I think Ten Bob resents the fact that I added him to my "Ignore" list. He doesn't like to be ignored, it seems. However, he is not the only one that I put on my list:- they are included because I don't enjoy and am not interested in the things they tend to write about. No offence.

okocha wrote:Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently made Minister for Brexit Opportunities, which surely means that the topic is current and important, especially as very few benefits for the UK have materialised up to now, the exact opposite in fact.

It is still an ongoing subject for debate in all the newspapers and on TV news outlets so it is surely relevant on here. It has implications for all of us, even if we can't change anything right now.

I think Ten Bob resents the fact that I added him to my "Ignore" list. He doesn't like to be ignored, it seems. However, he is not the only one that I put on my list:- they are included because I don't enjoy and am not interested in the things they tend to write about. No offence.

You swine! Have you got a problem with chins?

Are you even reading this?

Hello.....HELLO.....

okocha wrote:Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently made Minister for Brexit Opportunities, which surely means that the topic is current and important, especially as very few benefits for the UK have materialised up to now, the exact opposite in fact.

It is still an ongoing subject for debate in all the newspapers and on TV news outlets so it is surely relevant on here. It has implications for all of us, even if we can't change anything right now.

I think Ten Bob resents the fact that I added him to my "Ignore" list. He doesn't like to be ignored, it seems. However, he is not the only one that I put on my list:- they are included because I don't enjoy and am not interested in the things they tend to write about. No offence.

Resents?
No offence but Bob's met a few phoney's, charlatans, quacks and hypocrites in his time, and though he might take small pleasures in lampooning them, he really thinks that they are a bit of a menace.