Ukrainian Counter offensive--will they be able to take Crimea?

12526283031

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited February 14
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happens to Hungary's membership of NATO if 'Putin has Hungary in the bag'?
    Nothing, why should it? It's meaningless.
    Are people saying that Trump's deal with Putin will be reversed? Unlikely. Ukraine is being dismembered. What I find weird is that Europe seems surprised.

    Was anyone saying that Europe has to go it alone, and can't, before 2 weeks ago? I mean, just look at the OP from less than 2 years ago.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Britain has two very big aircraft carriers, undercrewed and with too few planes, and too few escort vessels. And insufficient time to rebuild our forces.

    That’s simultaneously sort of true (though with a pessimistic spin) and enormously irrelevant.

    In a world where there’s a continental European war and the US cannot be relied upon, what is the role of the carriers? It’s not like we will be trying v to keep the Atlantic sea lines of communication open or running Arctic convoys.

    The carriers (and their escorts) are for extra-European power projection (reassuring the Falklands, Brunei, the Five Power Defence Arrangement, etc),

    They’d (the Royal Navy) have more of a role (not unilaterally, obviously) confronting China, but if you’re confronting Russia that’s what the army and RAF are for.

    The army has been a failing organisation without a role for 2 decades (mission statement ‘we go abroad and lose wars’)

    The RN tells and is equipped for a power projection story.

    The RAF has largely got the right kit, but not the right quantities.

    The glimmer of reassurance (assuming we’re not all sleeping on the Underground by next week) is that our main deficiency for this round of global unpleasantness is actually the cheap holes to plug - boots, drones, man-portable surface to air missiles.

    What we don’t need out of the golf-bag is naval escorts.

  • The world before Trump 2 had the RN and RAF at the tip of the spear, and both were decently equipped in terms of quality rather than quantity. As of last week I’d say the RN and the army have just swapped places. Unfortunately the army is a basket case currently.

    Though this might focus minds.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited February 14
    So, mothball the useless carriers, which can't save Taiwan.

    Armies.

    Italy 388,000 - don't count?
    France 304,000
    Spain 199,000 - don't count?
    Poland 189,000
    Germany 183,000
    ...
    UK: 109,086 yet we're still considered the strongest military in Europe, despite our well deserved mission statement above, after the catastrophes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    ...
    Netherlands 66,000
    Sweden 50,000
    Belgium 30,174
    Finland 24,000
    Norway 17,185
    Lithuania 15,000
    Latvia 9,000
    Estonia 6,000

    Russia 830,900

    So, just about parity to man the trenches.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    So, mothball the useless carriers, which can't save Taiwan.

    Armies.

    Italy 388,000 - don't count?
    France 304,000
    Spain 199,000 - don't count?
    Poland 189,000
    Germany 183,000
    ...
    UK: 109,086 yet we're still considered the strongest military in Europe, despite our well deserved mission statement above, after the catastrophes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    ...
    Netherlands 66,000
    Sweden 50,000
    Belgium 30,174
    Finland 24,000
    Norway 17,185
    Lithuania 15,000
    Latvia 9,000
    Estonia 6,000

    Russia 830,900

    So, just about parity to man the trenches.

    Italy’s is pretty good. Spain’s not much to write home about. Add in Italy. I’d be tempted to delete Germany (though there are lots of good people in it); Austria are ok, the Czechs definitely are, the Greeks can hold the line and the Turks are awesome, so add them in.

    I’m only working off personal experience.

    Don’t mothball the carriers, we’ve enough other responsibilities that they’re perfect for and I’d rather turn someone off the streets into a soldier than retrain a sailor or airman (that’s a classic error - they’re built, they’ll do a job, the cost now is fuel and wages which is marginal against the defence budget)
  • Basically I’d be up for a 10% expansion of the RN and 15-20% RAF then put the rest into the army.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    The rest of what?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    I bow completely @betjemaniac. But will they step up to the front line?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited February 14
    Based on inside information, army training (sensibly) was switched to give more priority to dealing with terrorists. Close co-ordination with the RAF was a part of that. Not sure to what extent use of drones is included but I’d guess that’s an integral part of training

    Specialist training is necessary for Intelligence, IED disarming and some other highly classified functions.

    I doubt whether any divisions would be thought operational without sufficient specialist services.

    Increasing effective army numbers will include some specialised recruitment and extensive training. Not sure about scope for voluntary re-recruitment. Conscription is a thing of the past.

    Increasing army numbers by a substantial percentage would be a project requiring many months.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Based on inside information, army training (sensibly) was switched to give more priority to dealing with terrorists. Close co-ordination with the RAF was a part of that. Not sure to what extent use of drones is included but I’d guess that’s an integral part of training

    Specialist training is necessary for Intelligence, IED disarming and some other highly classified functions.

    I doubt whether any divisions would be thought operational without sufficient specialist services.

    Increasing effective army numbers will include some specialised recruitment and extensive training. Not sure about scope for voluntary re-recruitment. Conscription is a thing of the past.

    Increasing army numbers by a substantial percentage would be a project requiring many months.

    A year before we noticed anything. Better start a serious recruitment drive. Now.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited February 14
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Based on inside information, army training (sensibly) was switched to give more priority to dealing with terrorists.

    that, to be honest, sounds a bit odd. And also not what my ‘based on inside information’ says
    Barnabas62 wrote: »

    Close co-ordination with the RAF was a part of that. Not sure to what extent use of drones is included but I’d guess that’s an integral part of training

    Specialist training is necessary for Intelligence, IED disarming and some other highly classified functions.

    Ish. Close co-ordination yes. I love your faith that basic training involves even a picture of drones… (genuinely, it’s touching)

    As ever, specialist training is needed for all those things, most people don’t need it or get it.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I doubt whether any divisions would be thought operational without sufficient specialist services.

    Hmm, what’s a division? Who’s thinking? Do we make a ‘division’ operational without it? (Secret answer is yes)
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Increasing effective army numbers will include some specialised recruitment and extensive training. Not sure about scope for voluntary re-recruitment.

    Yes agree.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Conscription is a thing of the past.

    I think that was an assumption. Welcome to the new world. Lots of European countries are looking at it, everyone- me included- laughed at/scorned Sunak when he put it in the Tory manifesto last year….

    Life hits you fast
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Increasing army numbers by a substantial percentage would be a project requiring many months.

    I think we’ve got ‘many months’ - the new reality is going to last decades.
  • I’m a bit depressed tonight because, like a lot of people who have done this for a living, I’m a bit anti-war.

    But I look at the world, and the speculation in the British newspapers about what might be about to be cut to balance the books, and I think… never mind all that, what do we cut to divert the money to defence???
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    One of the things we've been seeing for the past three years is the slow emergence of an ad hoc security alliance consisting of Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Moldova. Finland seems likely to 'join', if that term means anything for what is, at this point, an informal grouping. Sweden and Norway also seem likely 'participants'. It is not coincidental that these are all countries geographically close to Russia.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited February 14
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the things we've been seeing for the past three years is the slow emergence of an ad hoc security alliance consisting of Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Moldova. Finland seems likely to 'join', if that term means anything for what is, at this point, an informal grouping. Sweden and Norway also seem likely 'participants'. It is not coincidental that these are all countries geographically close to Russia.

    Agree, although I’d add the UK to that - defence wise UK Estonia and Poland are thick as thieves.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    So, do you think that despite the western world shifting far, hard right; by not moving far at all, we won't acquiesce to right wing Russian hegemony?

    Like we didn't to German?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    @betjemaniac

    My info came from a recently retired ex soldier. Might be three years or so out of date. He worked in a specialist unit.

    I can’t say any more otherwise he’d have to shoot me (he said). Your info may well be better.
  • edited February 14
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the things we've been seeing for the past three years is the slow emergence of an ad hoc security alliance consisting of Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Moldova. Finland seems likely to 'join', if that term means anything for what is, at this point, an informal grouping. Sweden and Norway also seem likely 'participants'. It is not coincidental that these are all countries geographically close to Russia.

    As advocated by Gen. Pilsudski in the 1920's as 'Intermarium',
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the things we've been seeing for the past three years is the slow emergence of an ad hoc security alliance consisting of Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Moldova. Finland seems likely to 'join', if that term means anything for what is, at this point, an informal grouping. Sweden and Norway also seem likely 'participants'. It is not coincidental that these are all countries geographically close to Russia.

    As advocated by Gen. Pilsudski in the 1920's as 'Intermarium',

    Between the Baltic and the Black I presume. Good news! Just because you lurch to the right, doesn't mean you want to learn Russian.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    I’m a bit depressed tonight because, like a lot of people who have done this for a living, I’m a bit anti-war.

    But I look at the world, and the speculation in the British newspapers about what might be about to be cut to balance the books, and I think… never mind all that, what do we cut to divert the money to defence???

    Oh I dunno! Nothing like going on a war footing for boosting morale.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Re the attack on Chernobyl. A report with photographs.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I’m a bit depressed tonight because, like a lot of people who have done this for a living, I’m a bit anti-war.

    But I look at the world, and the speculation in the British newspapers about what might be about to be cut to balance the books, and I think… never mind all that, what do we cut to divert the money to defence???

    Oh I dunno! Nothing like going on a war footing for boosting morale.

    Not if the populace is not solid behind it. Is a Europe under Meloni, Le Pen and Weidel going to rally support for a war against their chum Vladimir? Lest we forget, Nigel Farage reckoned that the West provoked Russia and Ukraine should never have been authorised to use Western missiles...
  • The shift to an 'Indo-Pacific' strategy can now be seen for what it always was - an attempt to find a role for the aircraft carriers (which cannot realisically operate in the Baltic), to cosy up to the USA, and to bolster the national illusion of global power status, all based on the assumption that confrontation with Russia was over, and that we could safely detach ourselves from Europe. All of which have proved to have been mistakes or distractions.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    If Ukraine does not agree a deal, and Europe does continue to support Ukraine, will the US support Russia to fight against Ukraine and Europe? I think that is possible!
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I’m a bit depressed tonight because, like a lot of people who have done this for a living, I’m a bit anti-war.

    But I look at the world, and the speculation in the British newspapers about what might be about to be cut to balance the books, and I think… never mind all that, what do we cut to divert the money to defence???

    Oh I dunno! Nothing like going on a war footing for boosting morale.

    Not if the populace is not solid behind it. Is a Europe under Meloni, Le Pen and Weidel going to rally support for a war against their chum Vladimir? Lest we forget, Nigel Farage reckoned that the West provoked Russia and Ukraine should never have been authorised to use Western missiles...

    Yeahhhh, but there's fascists and fascists. Our fascists. And their fascists. Only if you're a fascist who owes your power to their fascist, like Belarus' Lukashenko. But surely our fascists have nationalist pride? Although concurrent European fascists have a bit of iron and clay about them, as in WW2 Spain, Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary. The trouble is Eurasia is in full fascist spectrum. Russia isn't ideologically other. China, hmmm, free-ish-market communism (what is that? Ah, fascist). It's more like a Vonnegut or Heinlein world than an Orwell.

    So yeah, do our fascists want to stand up to their fascists? US fascists certainly don't.

    Brave? New World.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited February 15
    Martin54 wrote: »
    But surely our fascists have nationalist pride?... do our fascists want to stand up to their fascists? US fascists certainly don't.

    Brave? New World.

    Well this is it I'm not sure! It seems that Euro-fascists are queueing up to be Trump and Putin's quislings. The global authoritarian axis seems more important than the nationalist aspect. I'm sure there is scope for squabbling between them in the future. But that's little comfort for the present.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    But surely our fascists have nationalist pride?... do our fascists want to stand up to their fascists? US fascists certainly don't.

    Brave? New World.

    Well this is it I'm not sure! It seems that Euro-fascists are queueing up to be Trump and Putin's quislings. The global authoritarian axis seems more important than the nationalist aspect. I'm sure there is scope for squabbling between them in the future. But that's little comfort for the present.

    I fear that you're right. Quislings indeed. And that the 'Intermarium' will be stabbed in rear.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited February 15
    I had to look up "Intermarium". But yes, probably Trump reckons Central/Eastern Europe is Russia's sphere of influence. And maybe Western Europe can be the US sphere of influence, kind of like Central and Latin America, as long as we have MAGA-friendly governments and let United Fruit in.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Hmmm. He doesn't mind if we let Russia have the east Atlantic coast.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Probably not. But I think he'd be happy enough to have us on-side as long as we don't cause any trouble.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Probably not. But I think he'd be happy enough to have us on-side as long as we don't cause any trouble.

    Dah. They gotta ocean. We're no trouble either way. Especially li'l' ole Ingerlund oblast.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Hmmm. He doesn't mind if we let Russia have the east Atlantic coast.

    I don't know where that comes from, but I feel like the focus is just shifting, the plan remains the same: surround and isolate Russia, decouple it from China and break it up into manageble parcels.

    Project "Destroy Russia's Economy by Sanctions" is a failure, so we move to project "Take over Greenland and Canada and Squeeze Russia's Arctic Trade Routes".

    I feel like the only reason why Trump's rhetoric about absorbing Canada has cooled is because someone has put the bug in his ear that they would have to drill through a mile of frozen granite to extract whatever there is of value beneath it. Canada is essentially 90% snow, ice, granite, permafrost and muskeg and who wants all that? Not even Canadians, we gave a huge chunk of it back to the indigenous people.

    AFF




  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 15
    We've been too little too late addressing fascism in our own countries. It's suited billionaire-run media and social media and neutered 'impartial media' that feeds off their news agenda to stoke hatred of immigrants and minority groups so as to avoid a social agenda of raising taxes and doing things that actually improve the lives of most people.

    Political parties that ought to have opposed this have jumped aboard and failed to counter it. With hindsight historians may look back to when Gordon Brown apologised to the bigoted voter and Ed Milliband brought out the Labour 'Controls on immigration' mug as harbingers of what was to come - appeasement (and not to buy time to re-arm either, but a genuine sell-out)

    Swimming against a bigoted media landscape is an art few politicians have - Nicola Sturgeon was one of them and she actually won elections but she's gone now and Swinney lacks her backbone and clear sight of who and what the enemy is. Starmer is a complete sell-out to the forces that drive the modern far right.

    And the result is that now America has fallen we have a divided Europe ( there was a reason Putin was keen on Brexit and has supported European fascist parties)

    It doesn't matter how mighty your military is if everything falls into the lap of the enemy through soft-power, media manipulation and low- information voters who soak up the prevailing media trend.

    We've just been crap at fighting fascism and too quick to buckle to its claims of 'reasonable concerns'. We've let it wear polite masks and come into the studio and now the bill is coming due.

    I don't know what we can do militarily to save Ukraine and ourselves. But on the home front I fear we are losing the battle if we don't find a way to organise against our current media landscape and the craven billionaires-mates politicians who feed off it.


  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    We're converging @Lousie. @betjemaniac too, if I may be so bold. We can do absolutely nothing militarily to save Ukraine now that Trump has given Putin victory on a plate. Our only hope is that our fascists don't like their fascists. But there is no sign of that. This is going back to a pre-ideological Europe. A non-imperial Europe. Just a disparate bunch of nationalists.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I didn't say that and I reject doomerism. I support fighting current trends of appeasement and doing what we can to change our current media and political landscape
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Louise wrote: »
    I didn't say that and I reject doomerism. I support fighting current trends of appeasement and doing what we can to change our current media and political landscape

    No you didn't and I didn't say you did @Louise. I said we're converging. Still do. From different points as is obvious. Appeasement is baked in, and we can do absolutely nothing to change the landscape. Unless you have something to show? Which isn't on show?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 15
    It would derail this thread to go into what's being done in the UK to fight fascism and my experience of discussing it with people who are heavily into what I would call 'doomerist' positions is that it's counterproductive to do so.

    My point is that we need to do more not that it's hopeless.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited February 15
    Now it is slightly worrying to me that over the past few days John Bolton has begun to seem eminently rational (on this topic, at least).

    One thing he said at the end of this interview was - Maybe it is not such a good thing to increase your defence budget because Trump has slapped you around. Maybe that is the wrong message to send to him. Anyway it doesn't really matter what the percentage number given to defence is - Trump has only mentioned 5% because he wants the allies to fail to meet this so that he has an excuse to withdraw the US from NATO.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Louise wrote: »
    It would derail this thread to go into what's being done in the UK to fight fascism and my experience of discussing it with people who are heavily into what I would call 'doomerist' positions is that it's counterproductive to do so.

    My point is that we need to do more not that it's hopeless.

    I'm all for hope for its own sake. There doesn't seem to be anything, anyone remotely Churchillian to latch on to. No Lincoln. No Disraeli. All conservatives implacably opposed to far worse. No grass roots pan-European mass movement. Do what more do you suggest?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Who's they @Barnabas62? Voices in the wilderness don't count. When there is no social justice, for long enough, the masses despair and turn to disruptors. There are only fascists on sale.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Current European heads of government.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    He didn't vote for them.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    It actually is possible for heads of government to recognise where their mutual self interest lies. It does not lie in abandoning Ukraine.

    So far as Europe is concerned you are quite wrong if you believe that Trump and his neo-fascist policies are popular with the majority of citizens. To stand up and speak against them will attract sufficient support to defeat them. If that means upsetting the White House, so what?

    It’s actually even simpler than that. Standing up to bullies is never wrong.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited February 15
    It certainly doesn't. But, again, foreign policy is entirely secondary to domestic. Why would I believe that Trump's flurry of blows on Europe are popular with Europe? But they are enviously admired. Standing up and speaking served Denmark well didn't it? Can you join up the dots please, how a united European speaking front can defeat any of Trump's policies? Could upset him apart from the lack of 'respec'? I agree on standing up to bullies. Done meself proud doing it. Got the shit kicked out of me a couple of time mind.
  • I read that the Ukrainians, perhaps frustrated by the noises coming from the T**** Whitehouse, have invited the Chinese in for discussions. I must say that made me smile.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Why would I believe that Trump's flurry of blows on Europe are popular with Europe?
    Why should we expect them to be popular with Europe? Trump is playing to his support base in the US, they don't care about Europe, they just want to "Make America Great Again". America First, and screw everyone else (including the growing list of people in America they no longer think of as being American). Trump is playing at being a strong man because he's weak, picking fights with people who have no desire to fight so he can claim he's beaten them.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    European governments and their present leaders have a self interest in defeating the neo-fascist rise within their own borders.

    Louise used the phrase “now that America has fallen”. Whether that fall is permanent remains to be seen. But what is safe to say is that for the time being the USA cannot be relied on as an ally by any government in Europe. That is the first pair of dots to be joined up. If the cost of being an ally to the current USA government is that we must “drink their poisonous Kool Aid” that cost is too high. So the next pair of dots to be joined is to say “if you must go down that road we simply cannot join you”.

    I do not know what happens after that. But stopping the spread of neo fascism in our countries is enlightened self interest. So is supporting Ukraine. It made sense when the USA was with us. It still makes sense now.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Why would I believe that Trump's flurry of blows on Europe are popular with Europe?
    Why should we expect them to be popular with Europe? Trump is playing to his support base in the US, they don't care about Europe, they just want to "Make America Great Again". America First, and screw everyone else (including the growing list of people in America they no longer think of as being American). Trump is playing at being a strong man because he's weak, picking fights with people who have no desire to fight so he can claim he's beaten them.

    Er... I don't? But I agree with everything else of course. He's like the bully who only attacks old men, women and young boys.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    European governments and their present leaders have a self interest in defeating the neo-fascist rise within their own borders.

    Louise used the phrase “now that America has fallen”. Whether that fall is permanent remains to be seen. But what is safe to say is that for the time being the USA cannot be relied on as an ally by any government in Europe. That is the first pair of dots to be joined up. If the cost of being an ally to the current USA government is that we must “drink their poisonous Kool Aid” that cost is too high. So the next pair of dots to be joined is to say “if you must go down that road we simply cannot join you”.

    I do not know what happens after that. But stopping the spread of neo fascism in our countries is enlightened self interest. So is supporting Ukraine. It made sense when the USA was with us. It still makes sense now.

    I agree completely @Barnabas62. Show me.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I can’t show you how it will work out. Often, when you draw the line, you can’t predict the consequences. They depend on the reactions of others. Drawing the line means precisely that.

    But ducking drawing the line because you fear the consequences is akin to kowtowing to a bully. That may be Churchillian. “We will never surrender”. Nor should we.
Sign In or Register to comment.