Reports that Russia has just hit the Odessa port with missiles. Didn't even take them 24h to break the grain export deal.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
No way will they do this. They might operate in a different reality in the Kremlin but they haven’t completely lost their minds. What would declaring war and widespread mobilisation achieve, apart from turning more Russians against Putin and the war?
A draft will strip the economy of its most productive members (20-45yo males) and further hurt the Russian economy. It will increase the brain drain 10-fold as people will flee the country to avoid the draft. Instead they will swell the ranks of the army with untrained, ill-equipped and ill-disciplined foot soldiers. They will not even have enough officers to command them. They will then start throwing those into the fight, USSR-style, and suffering huge losses for paltry results. Morale will plummet, desertions and self-sabotage will go through the roof. Russian society will no longer be insulated from the effects of the war.
And for what? Will they suddenly magic more artillery pieces, more shells, more cruise missiles, more warplanes, more warships, more radars, more air defences and more drones out of thin air? No. Will they bridge the increasing technological gap as Ukraine is getting armed with more modern western weapons? Also no.
Widespread mobilisation would be an act of self-harm for Russia and Putin. Which is why they haven’t done it.
You're acting as if the war makes good sense. Russia's supposed objectives are to secure the 9 corridors that have allowed invading armies to enter Russia some 50 times in their history, with their population set to plummet they won't have the manpower to do this in 30 years, it's their last change, as I've mentioned before, not really dying to explain the whole thing again but here's a video, at 1:45 he gets into his Russia theory, and since he's just about the only guy who predicted the Russian invasion, I think he's onto something.
Last edited:
No, I’m not. I’m acting on the assumption that we can both tell the difference between an act of self harm with absolutely no potential upsides and a dangerous gamble on a war that could have upsides (if for example Kyiv had fallen in the siege of March). The Russians obviously badly miscalculated on the war, both overestimating their army and underestimating Ukrainian and western resolve. But there is no calculation under which a general mobilisation suits the regime now. If you think there is, let me hear the rational arguments for it.
Just because he guessed right on a 50-50 (war vs no war) doesn’t mean he’s in the mind of the Russian leadership. For example the controlling of invasion corridors you mentioned, is the most horseshit reasoning I’ve ever heard in my life.
Idgaf if Russia got invaded 50, 500, or 5 trillion times in its history through those corridors. No one invades the country with the largest nuclear stockpile. The nuclear era made other historic patterns, in this particular matter, obsolete and irrelevant. It’s as simple as that. If that’s the basis of his reasoning, then it’s a good thing that you’re not wasting your time trying to explain it further and I’m not wasting my time watching that video.
Winter will be interesting...
And here comes Poland with 500
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The state withdrawing citizenship is very iffy.
How does it actually work anyways, if you only have one citizenship?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Following on from the UK government to be fair. No wonder they like Boris so much.
Legally it doesn't. It is only lawful if the person has another possible citizenship to claim.
Smells like a Russian puppet.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I agree on the principle. But billionaire Kolomoisky is not your average citizen, he doesn’t risk becoming stateless. He has citizenship in Israel and in Cyprus. The latter making him also an EU citizen…
Is sdp in Germany infiltrated by Russians or what, their last chancellor seemed iffy on this issue as well, Going straight to Gazprom after his tenure ended does his reputation no favors either.
Certainly an interesting career path he chose, was always one of my favorites.
That's true, but if they can do it to him, they (or someone else in the future) can do it to other people who don't deserve it as much.
Don’t want to give Chomsky and Brand oxygen, but someone needs to book the old man an appointment at Dignitas. An absolute nutter.
That makes as much sense as saying that if Ukraine can put someone on trial legitimately, find them guilty, and send then to jail, then they could also do it to someone who doesn’t deserve it – and therefore shouldn’t do it at all?
How do we know it's thermite?
No, that's not the same at all. Some things are just not something the state should have the power to do. Sentence someone to death, for example. Or take away someone's right to vote. Or take away their citizenship.
If I say I don't think prisoners should receive early release in exchange for donating organs, that doesn't mean I must think there should be no early release based on good behaviour either. They're not the same thing.
Why shouldn’t a state be allowed to strip your citizenship, especially if you have pursued holding multiple citizenships and/or the equivalent of indefinite leave to remain in another country?
The current UK Government is a good exhibit for why it is a bad idea. The power is generally used against migrants and people of colour in the UK too. I could have my citizenship stripped because I am (in principle) eligible for Irish citizenship.
But the power could not be used against me if my grandparents were born in the UK, no matter what I did or what crime I committed.
Because once you're a citizen you're a citizen, IMO. You can voluntarily give it up, but it shouldn't be taken from you. To me it just becomes too powerful a tool for a government. Laws can obviously be abused as well, to your earlier point, but at least that takes a complicit legislature.
Can't know for sure but it look exactly like all the other videos of the 9m22s thermite rockets.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Very weird formulation, it reads like he's claiming some connection between the better than feared recession and the central bank's decision to slash rates, while the actual facts only make sense if he's reporting two distinct things. If anything, choosing to cut rates while inflation is high indicates that they're worried about the economy, though it's a bit more noise here considering they increased so much after the invasion.
Superb article.
Are Poland sending 500 Himars? I don't get that 12 is all the west could muster so far.And here comes Poland with 500
They cost 5.3m a pop. Also note that technology moves so swiftly that no general can predict what would actually work in war and what's not. That happened in WW1 and WW2 were generals expected a totally different war to the one they fought. It also happening the same in Ukraine were Russian cutting edge technology failed and are now reduced to the good old artillery
Since artillery has been one of Russias main advantages, I don't get why the west can't flood Ukraine with Artillery. I mean our stocks of them must be high.
I *think* Russia's stockpile of artillery dwarfs that of all other nations. I don't think Western European militaries have many at all.
It's not only a question about giving the launchers to Ukraine. You need to be able to provide them with ammunition too, the logistics of getting the ammunition into Ukraine needs to be there, then all the ammunition needs to be transported to the front, there is no point having 100 launchers driving around without ammunition. Spare parts will also be needed and maintenence people will need to be educated. All of these things needs to be solved before it's any point getting the launchers on the ground.
The West counters artillery with Air Force, so it does not need huge artillery stockpiles. NATO Air Force capabilities are much higher that Russia's, and NATO would probably gain air superiority quite soon if there was a direct confrontation. Unfortunately, Ukraine does not have an Air Force, so it lacks the main NATO weapon against artillery.
That is mainly because of how different the western artillery doctrine is to the Russian, especially when we talk about rocket artillery.
Soviet and Russian Artillery doctrine is mainly based on quantity. Hitting massive areas on the enemy front lines with huge numbers of fairly chep and inaccurate munitions.
The artillery doctrine of most western countrys is almost the exact opposite. it relies on high precision and long range, against key targets like ammunition and fuel storages, command posts, radar sites and so on.
No, Poland are planning to buy 500.