Russia has invaded Ukraine

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

Zelensky: “Close the sky or give us aircraft.”

While speaking with media, President Zelensky called on NATO to close the sky over Ukraine. He asked how many more Ukrainians have to be injured for this decision to be made. If it can't be made, "give us planes,” he said. - Kyiv Independent.

He knows NATO won’t implement it.

BREAKING: Russian oil giant Lukoil calls for halt to Ukraine war in potential big blow for Putin. - AFP News Agency.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's not what I said and if all you're going to bring to the discussion is word games and pedantry then I've no interest in discussing it further with you

Its exactly what you said.

Originally Posted by Paul

Is it actually true, did he provide any real evidence ?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Does it even matter if it is true?

Originally Posted by Paul

If its true, hes simply reporting facts, however much people may dislike them.
If its false, then its propaganda & misinformation, and he needs to get pulled up for it.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

James no-mark can stick his facts imo

Originally Posted by Paul

But is it a fact ?
You may not care if what you are told is real, some people do.
It was a simple enough question that you, and others, were unwilling to answer.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'm not unwilling to answer, I just don't find it relevant and can't see why any one else would tbh

There were no word games, as detailed above.
I asked a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

You however went on a wild "I dont care, its not relevant" rant - no idea why.
Hugh eventually provided the source, which pretty much made it unlikely to be true anyway, so yeah, feel free to bail out.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

He knows NATO won’t implement it.

NATO have already made it clear to him, the other day.
Theres a big difference between giving them weapons to fight, and doing the shooting ourselves.
A difference that leads to full European war.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Its exactly what you said.


There were no word games, as detailed above.
I asked a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

You however went on a wild "I dont care, its not relevant" rant - no idea why.
Hugh eventually provided the source, which pretty much made it unlikely to be true anyway, so yeah, feel free to bail

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and clarify, I think they did send the aid, it's such a trivial gesture it's hardly worth lying about and said so twice

they delivered 30 tons of aid, so what

like I said they've sent a truck load of stuff, big deal

Like others said as well I don't consider them doing do so as being in any way relevant, in context of the damage they've caused it isn't apportionate or appropriate to be giving them credit for doing so, it's meaningless as in it doesn't matter, wonder if that could be the reason why

we won't be hearing about it in the news

In terms up updates I'd rather get them from Mick than this no-mark political commentator

Centre for Defence Strategies: Russia will likely impose martial law on March 4.

The Ukrainian think tank also expects no progress in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Imposing martial law will let Russian authorities prevent possible mass anti-war protests.- Kyiv Independent.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Economist says Russian invasion could lead to largest wheat shortage in history.

The invasion will cause a massive supply shock and nothing can be done in the short term to prevent it, according to @ScottIrwinUI, as quoted by Bloomberg.

Russia and Ukraine account for a quarter of wheat and one-fifth of corn production worldwide. - Kyiv Independent.

What's the logic in not giving Ukraine more aircraft? Is it just cost or are we worried that if our actual plans, albeit piloted by Ukrainian pilots, shoot down Russians it's too close to us being involved?

Originally Posted by Damien

What's the logic in not giving Ukraine more aircraft? Is it just cost or are we worried that if our actual plans, albeit piloted by Ukrainian pilots, shoot down Russians it's too close to us being involved?

There has to be a risk of the Russians making plausible claims that there are actually nato pilots in the planes. Frankly, there might have to be - these are extremely complex machines. It’s not like parking a Golf and getting behind the wheel of a Focus. If they did turn them over to Ukrainian pilots, there’s still the problem that an F16 is a very visible symbol of American military technology. It’s not a commodity item like a rocket launcher. And with pilots unused to the hardware, there might be significant losses of extremely expensive equipment for relatively little gain. It probably makes more sense to spend that sort of money on 1,000s of SAMs and deal with the Russian Air Force from the ground.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...ng-2022-03-03/

China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank freezes Russia lending

LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) said on Thursday it has put all activities relating to Russia and Belarus on hold and under review in the wake of the current conflict in Ukraine.

The Beijing headquarted AIIB said in a statement that its management would do its utmost to safeguard the financial integrity of AIIB, against the backdrop of the evolving economic and financial situation.

"Under these circumstances, and in the best interests of the Bank, Management has decided that all activities relating to Russia and Belarus are on hold and under review."

China is the largest shareholder in the development bank holding 26.5% of its voting power.

Makes sense.

I suspect we're also keeping an eye on what happens if Ukraine falls which is likely. Those planes require an airfield, maintenance, re-fueling none of which is suited to an insurgent campaign. Probably better to arm them with weapons they can use on the streets.

[Blackshep]

No western country is going to provide front line aircraft of any sort if for no other reason we don't want the Russian's getting their hands on them. Which aircraft should we send?, apart from old stock's of soviet era aircraft in former communist eastern Europe that would be completely useless we can't send anything else it isn't just training the pilot's we'd have to supply advanced munition's and experienced ground crew for the maintenance and training and honestly there isn't the time to do it.

People are be crying what is happening in Ukraine while calling for NATO to implement a no fly zone that would cause a much wider and destructive war where's the sense.

Originally Posted by Damien

Makes sense.

I suspect we're also keeping an eye on what happens if Ukraine falls which is likely. Those planes require an airfield, maintenance, re-fueling none of which is suited to an insurgent campaign. Probably better to arm them with weapons they can use on the streets.

Exactly. Huge quantities of material likely to be of use to insurgents is going to be more effective than planes that are difficult to operate and probably impossible to repair.

The question of whether Ukraine falls is an interesting one - how would we judge when that has happened? Kyiv may well fall and a puppet government may be installed there, but will its writ truly run across the whole country? I suspect a Russian-controlled Ukraine will be a somewhat worse experience for them than Soviet Afghanistan was.

Originally Posted by Chris

... planes that are difficult to operate and probably impossible to repair.

They are also likely to be shot down pretty quicky when flown by inexperienced pilots, plus Russia would quickly target any airfields they use.

Originally Posted by Chris

The question of whether Ukraine falls is an interesting one - how would we judge when that has happened? Kyiv may well fall and a puppet government may be installed there, but will its writ truly run across the whole country? I suspect a Russian-controlled Ukraine will be a somewhat worse experience for them than Soviet Afghanistan was.

I think we're talking about a point where the Russians nominally establish the first signs of whatever they view as the long-term plan for Ukraine to be (or if they somehow decide to simply leave). If we assume they install either a puppet government for the whole country or divide it up into two that'll be when it moves to the next phase, likely one of the Russians trying to brutally suppress insurgents.

The lack of any obvious solution does suggest this was a spectacular misjudgement. They probably expected this to be easy and a puppet Government to be installed and established before the West could agree on a single sanction.

They can't hold the country without troops which will cause, as you say, a modern equivalent of Soviet Afghanistan further depleting their armies, wealth and political stability at home.

I wonder what our endgame is? Do we lift sanctions anytime soon? Even if Russia withdraws I can't see us allowing them back whilst Putin is in charge because he'll do this again. Are we stuck in this position until Putin is kicked out and how long can this unity survive before some Government gets tempted by cheap oil? Especially when this huge public support dims and the domestic political costs of dealing with Russia reduce?

Originally Posted by Damien

I think we're talking about a point where the Russians nominally establish the first signs of whatever they view as the long-term plan for Ukraine to be (or if they somehow decide to simply leave). If we assume they install either a puppet government for the whole country or divide it up into two that'll be when it moves to the next phase, likely one of the Russians trying to brutally suppress insurgents.

The lack of any obvious solution does suggest this was a spectacular misjudgement. They probably expected this to be easy and a puppet Government to be installed and established before the West could agree on a single sanction.

They can't hold the country without troops which will cause, as you say, a modern equivalent of Soviet Afghanistan further depleting their armies, wealth and political stability at home.

I wonder what our endgame is? Do we lift sanctions anytime soon? Even if Russia withdraws I can't see us allowing them back whilst Putin is in charge because he'll do this again. Are we stuck in this position until Putin is kicked out and how long can this unity survive before some Government gets tempted by cheap oil? Especially when this huge public support dims and the domestic political costs of dealing with Russia reduce?

If it comes to it we may have to wait him out. He’s 69 and clearly well past his sharpest. Eventually he will go, and whoever replaces him will inevitably wonder how he can improve the lot of his people and ask how sanctions might be rolled back. After all, the mess in Ukraine won’t be that person’s legacy and they won’t have the same motivation to maintain it.