Animal Farm within an Animal Farm within an Animal Farm within......
Edited to add: Just heard (radio4) an interview with regard to still getting BBC news into Russia. I hope people aren't moaning about the BBC licence fee....
If Putin was to be "removed" by whatever means, who would then take over the helm ? Whilst reports state that some of his generals aren't too happy about his incursion of Ukraine, do we actually know who would step into his shoes and what their intentions would be ?
There does come a point when people have to be responsible for the action of their leaders. Sure as hell it isn't easy for Russians ( not to mention a few others ) right now to dump their Presidents/Dictators but if they don't find some way forward, things will never change and both major and minor wars will continue ad infinitum. The Russian people aren't new to revolution after all.-
As said, there's no easy answer to this present conflict but I rather think the best we can do is to continue to support those brave Russians who are trying to make changes.
Since Putin has made himself president for life, there seems no way for ordinary, thinking, sensible Russians (of whom there are a lot) to get him out and the regime changed. My husband has had to suspend his WhatsApp video conversations with a Russian choir conductor trying to improve her English, because she is very likely to get into trouble if the conversation leaves the mundane and strays into politics, as it used to do.
Am I right in thinking Ms Patel wants demonstrators in Britain potentially jailed for 10 years? We mustn't let Britain go the same way as Russia... how can anyone make their feelings known under such restrictions? Ok, write to your MP. How many of us have done that, and what proportion of us have been taken notice of?
Since 2019 I've lived in east Clare, in the west of Ireland.
I was reading that to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine would start world War Three but I'm wondering if it's started already anyway.
Nah.
The problem with the NFZ is that it changes Putin's narrative. Surprisingly, he hasn't managed to persuade the world that the arming of Ukraine by NATO countries is an east versus west conflict (read RT and Sputnik, even they don't run that narrative) but direct engagement would be different. I think it would galvanise nationalism in Russia in the same way that Ukrainian patriotism is currently proving to be such a strong force. With that east versus west or, more accurately, us versus NATO (i.e. the US) narrative in place, China, India, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Serbia and a few other places beside will find their populations more sympathetic to Russia, turning Goliath into David, and that could make additional entrants more conceivable. I've ruminated on this long and hard and support the current state of play, especially when one bears in mind the phenomenal extent of intelligence, logistical support and military strategy that NATO countries are bestowing upon Ukraine - all of which is ultimately how wars are won. The briefings from the US in particular have been spot on about troop movements at every turn and the logistics of dropping thousands of NLAWs and Javs into encircled cities is admirable, akin to the Berlin airlift.
The threat of nuclear war also needs to be understood as not being binary, either nothing or an apocalypse. Nuclear weapons are a category, not a type, of weapon and their destructiveness can range from being small enough to knock down a forest with negligible radiation to large enough to cause serious, long-lasting and horrific damage. Of Russia's 6,000 or so, the majority are not understood to be of the latter type. For what it's worth, I suspect a nuclear attack is more likely than not - especially if Putin cannot breakthrough by conventional means - because it raises the stakes further and forces the international community to call a very deadly bluff. But Putin has already fought over two nuclear power installations and a meltdown at either could have been more devastating than the dropping of a missile. If he actually dropped a nuclear bomb of any real size, it would cement pariah status and I suspect force other world powers off the fence to prevent an apocalypse - China wants strategic ties with Russia but only if there's something left after this war for it to strategise over. Nuclear armageddon risks that. What is far more probable is a demonstration that Putin will use nukes - a small one in a less populated area is likely. But, bear in mind, we may have already seen an escalation beyond that if it transpires that Putin has used thermobaric bombs, which are effectively similar in that they too use reactions to create an explosion which is far greater than the sum of the components' explosiveness. If that didn't cause a third world war, a small nuke shouldn't either.
I've already written an essay so I won't move on to my thoughts on the conflict in general, but thought I'd address the nuclear and escalation point!
Well certainly the bombing of nuclear power stations is an act of aggression designed to affect more than just Ukraine … the thing is I believe Putin is behaving so outrageously to provoke NATO into action, in order to validate his propaganda at home.
This is exactly what he’s done in the past … made mountains out of molehills.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Just heard on the BBC that Russia is stopping shelling around one of the cities to allow civilians out. How on earth does that ever fit with Putin's narrative in the minds of the Russian people?
It's the contradictions that point the way isn't it?
- We don't plan an invasion - that's Western propaganda. All in the West's mind.
- We are one people. Ukrainian's are our brothers. Let's bomb them.
- We're ridding Ukraine of a Nazi infection and purging it's military power - by killing Ukrainians indiscriminately.
- This is because NATO is moving East, so we're going to save them the trouble by moving Russia west.
- It's not a war, it's a sunday stroll in the park. But we need to open a humanitarian corridor to let civilians out.
I also heard yesterday that the narrative was that brave Russian soldiers averted a nuclear disaster.
I feel for the Russians. The history of the common man there has been horrendous for centuries - worse than most of the other European states. But at this point, it seems that the world needs the Russian people to see and understand what is going on.
Without doubt Putin needs to stopped and diplomatic efforts don't appear to be working. But assassination ? I certainly don't have an answer but it would seem to me that change needs to come from within Russia itself and that will take some time.
Removing Saddam and Gadaffi only made 'things' worse.
Assassination is wrong, morally and pragmatically.
Removing Saddam and Gadaffi did not “only” make things worse. Refusing to commit to the peace and rebuilding is always the problem.
Posts
If Putin was to be "removed" by whatever means, who would then take over the helm ? Whilst reports state that some of his generals aren't too happy about his incursion of Ukraine, do we actually know who would step into his shoes and what their intentions would be ?
There does come a point when people have to be responsible for the action of their leaders. Sure as hell it isn't easy for Russians ( not to mention a few others ) right now to dump their Presidents/Dictators but if they don't find some way forward, things will never change and both major and minor wars will continue ad infinitum. The Russian people aren't new to revolution after all.-
As said, there's no easy answer to this present conflict but I rather think the best we can do is to continue to support those brave Russians who are trying to make changes.
Am I right in thinking Ms Patel wants demonstrators in Britain potentially jailed for 10 years? We mustn't let Britain go the same way as Russia... how can anyone make their feelings known under such restrictions? Ok, write to your MP. How many of us have done that, and what proportion of us have been taken notice of?
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing
I can just imagine a conversation amongst the few survivors in a post-apocalyptic world saying "if only someone had taken that Putin bloke out...."
I play with plants and soil and sometimes it's successful
The problem with the NFZ is that it changes Putin's narrative. Surprisingly, he hasn't managed to persuade the world that the arming of Ukraine by NATO countries is an east versus west conflict (read RT and Sputnik, even they don't run that narrative) but direct engagement would be different. I think it would galvanise nationalism in Russia in the same way that Ukrainian patriotism is currently proving to be such a strong force. With that east versus west or, more accurately, us versus NATO (i.e. the US) narrative in place, China, India, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Serbia and a few other places beside will find their populations more sympathetic to Russia, turning Goliath into David, and that could make additional entrants more conceivable. I've ruminated on this long and hard and support the current state of play, especially when one bears in mind the phenomenal extent of intelligence, logistical support and military strategy that NATO countries are bestowing upon Ukraine - all of which is ultimately how wars are won. The briefings from the US in particular have been spot on about troop movements at every turn and the logistics of dropping thousands of NLAWs and Javs into encircled cities is admirable, akin to the Berlin airlift.
The threat of nuclear war also needs to be understood as not being binary, either nothing or an apocalypse. Nuclear weapons are a category, not a type, of weapon and their destructiveness can range from being small enough to knock down a forest with negligible radiation to large enough to cause serious, long-lasting and horrific damage. Of Russia's 6,000 or so, the majority are not understood to be of the latter type. For what it's worth, I suspect a nuclear attack is more likely than not - especially if Putin cannot breakthrough by conventional means - because it raises the stakes further and forces the international community to call a very deadly bluff. But Putin has already fought over two nuclear power installations and a meltdown at either could have been more devastating than the dropping of a missile. If he actually dropped a nuclear bomb of any real size, it would cement pariah status and I suspect force other world powers off the fence to prevent an apocalypse - China wants strategic ties with Russia but only if there's something left after this war for it to strategise over. Nuclear armageddon risks that. What is far more probable is a demonstration that Putin will use nukes - a small one in a less populated area is likely. But, bear in mind, we may have already seen an escalation beyond that if it transpires that Putin has used thermobaric bombs, which are effectively similar in that they too use reactions to create an explosion which is far greater than the sum of the components' explosiveness. If that didn't cause a third world war, a small nuke shouldn't either.
I've already written an essay so I won't move on to my thoughts on the conflict in general, but thought I'd address the nuclear and escalation point!
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Removing Saddam and Gadaffi did not “only” make things worse. Refusing to commit to the peace and rebuilding is always the problem.