Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)


Status
Not open for further replies.
No way do Russia not intend to take all the country and probably Moldova too. They won't leave a western Ukraine that will get a quick route into NATO. Now the Russians have felt the economic sanction pain they may as well complete their objectives.
The military guy on 5 live says that when you have a determined populace the casualties are 5 to 1 with occupiers taking the brunt. He reckoned Russia haven't got the manpower to subdue Ukraine.
 
No way do Russia not intend to take all the country and probably Moldova too. They won't leave a western Ukraine that will get a quick route into NATO. Now the Russians have felt the economic sanction pain they may as well complete their objectives.

Well it comes down to why does Putin want Ukraine anyway. He certainly doesn’t need more Russian territory and it’s not going to allow him to reestablish the Tsarist empire. The other suggestion is he wants to keep NATO away from his border.

So what achieves that? Taking it all and having a strong and stable Poland on his de facto border or having a few hundred miles of unstable and probably decimated Western Ukraine that is years away at least from joining as the preferred option?
 
Hard to understand why Germany can impose sanctions and uk cannot as of yet ?

Needs a debate in parliament
What's the point. All you'll get is bluff and bluster in return. 'Leading the way..' etc.
A load of our democratic processes and institutions are laying in ruin after being ridden roughshod over. A lot of it has been directly lifted from the Russian playbook incidentally.
 
With reference to the last tweet - does this mean that the power of the UK government to issue these sanctions was watered down in the legislation, following resistance from opposition parties?
There's a leading question, letting some bias show there ;)

At the risk of getting into politics rather than the thread subject the government have a decent majority, they could easily introduce legislation that would moot any court challenge. That they choose not to, and wring their hands about legal challenges, tells you they aren't as commited as they claim to be.
David Allen Green covered this very point early this week.
 
With the amount of Russian money here (as I said the other day 60% of all russian GDP is offshore, much in London) he's actively sabotaging the war effort and potentially sending millions of Ukrainians to their death, all for 10k a year.

Always shocks me just how cheap it is to bribe our politicians.

Yeah, some of these "donations/bribes" would struggle to buy you a two year old BMW.
 
What's the point. All you'll get is bluff and bluster in return. 'Leading the way..' etc.
A load of our democratic processes and institutions are laying in ruin after being ridden roughshod over. A lot of it has been directly lifted from the Russian playbook incidentally.

This, unfortunately.

The APPG on Russia have done excellent work on this. Chris Bryant’s question yesterday at PMQ’s and his interview on LBC posted on this thread were spot on but through a warped view of ‘parliamentary privilege’ that the government holds, they don’t even have to answer the question when it is asked.
 
Overall I’m not sure it matters too much as the EU and US are being far more aggressive. Overall it’s been suggested they could lose up to 90% of their wealth. A lot of EU countries are already confiscating assets
Isn't a huge and disproportionate amount of their wealth held here though? Unless we match the efforts of the EU and US then the squeeze on may of the Oligarchs surely won't be effective enough.
 
$40 million loss is true...

there's more images of parts of the plane on the thread. also clear signs that Russia does not own the skies over Ukraine.


They probably won’t do for a long time. Ukraine had 200 of the latest stinger missiles delivered yesterday that can take down a fighter jet in the right circumstances.

And today Germany is dumping its old stock of 2,700 Manpads to them. Apparently these are ancient so will be useless against modern fighter jets. But will be good for Russian helicopters and potentially Russian cargo planes depending on what height they are flying at (They have a ceiling)

But the pure fact they have 2,700 which is a huge number means they can afford to be a bit more speculative in firing them even when against the odds

 
Truss is saying one thing whilst Boris does another maybe they should communicate

Anyone else’s baffled why so many reporters want to inform the Russians what’s being delivered to the front lines.


Maybe instead of doing it for your own political gain and a thank you for certain nations people they do it for Ukraine.
 
The military guy on 5 live says that when you have a determined populace the casualties are 5 to 1 with occupiers taking the brunt. He reckoned Russia haven't got the manpower to subdue Ukraine.

or the money...
or be able to control their long borders with western european countries. this isn't the 1960's and it's not a country fully surrounded by other russian controlled countries.
 
Isn't a huge and disproportionate amount of their wealth held here though? Unless we match the efforts of the EU and US then the squeeze on may of the Oligarchs surely won't be effective enough.

Well a lot of their wealth is apparently also in things like yacht’s and holiday homes which are heavily around the Mediterranean and Southern Europe. They probably have investment assets here more.
 
And more. Not sure if it benefits Ukraine intelligence or just NATO
Yes, it seems a mixture of USAF, NATO, RAF and the odd other air force like Poland, Greece, Turkey, etc. I must admit, I know very little about war tactics so I was wondering what the point of these flights were other than having planes close to the action.
 
The military guy on 5 live says that when you have a determined populace the casualties are 5 to 1 with occupiers taking the brunt. He reckoned Russia haven't got the manpower to subdue Ukraine.

That seems to be the ratio if you have a good and highly competent army. Without that and in urban warfare it might even be much higher some expert was suggesting the other day
 
Well it comes down to why does Putin want Ukraine anyway. He certainly doesn’t need more Russian territory and it’s not going to allow him to reestablish the Tsarist empire. The other suggestion is he wants to keep NATO away from his border.

So what achieves that? Taking it all and having a strong and stable Poland on his de facto border or having a few hundred miles of unstable and probably decimated Western Ukraine that is years away at least from joining as the preferred option?
Natural resources? He seems to want the dam back on to be able to irrigate the wheat export market and he seems to be attacking the natural resource areas. A lot of us doubt Russia's NATO claims, maybe it is down to what it always comes down to, Money and resources?
 
There's a leading question, letting some bias show there ;)

At the risk of getting into politics rather than the thread subject the government have a decent majority, they could easily introduce legislation that would moot any court challenge. That they choose not to, and wring their hands about legal challenges, tells you they aren't as commited as they claim to be.
David Allen Green covered this very point early this week.

I'd expect to see some "headline" legislation when the dust settles, to do just that.

If the original legislation was passed in 2017, then it wasn't a "normal" parliament, a majority govt, or a particularly united Tory party. I genuinely don't remember the legislation re sanctions powers specifically - but wouldn't surprise me if a certain contingent of like-minded MPs such as Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Woolaston etc voted with the opposition, as was in vogue for them at that time?

Anyway - it's moot now. The law says what it says and the law has to apply. This isn't Russia after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top