By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I am just wondering what the mood is on this question, which for years would have been practically unthinkable:
What do you think are the chances of a deliberate Russian (or Belarusian or Wagner Group etc) military strike on a target in NATO territory within the next 12 months?
Please give your answer as a percentage, ranged from 0.1 to 99.9%.
If I get a few answers it will give us a Hive Mind average.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 18:22 - Mar 20 with 1238 views
As you're trying to get an average, 0% should be an option, and I would opt for that.
My view accords with that of a former UK ambassador to Russia interviewed on the World Service a couple of days ago who dismissed talk of a Russian attack on a NATO country as nonsense, and pointed to the complete imbalance in military spending/capability between European members of NATO and Russia, leaving aside the vast US capability.
[Post edited 21 Mar 10:01]
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 18:55 - Mar 20 with 1191 views
I feel there is an outside chance that there will be some "Electrical Sub Station fires" in Czechia, adjacent to storage areas for the 300,000 shells they are buying for Ukraine, once they start being delivered and shift momentum back towards Ukraine.
Another potential target is one of the airbases where Ukrainian Air Force pilots are being trained to fly F16's.
Huge numbers of military age Russians went across various borders at the outset of the war. Some of them will be Special Forces saboteurs.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 17:14 - Mar 20 by BlueBadger
Fancy that, our resident Tory apologist is also a Vlad dissembler.
Explains why he's so grumpy though. Imagine being so low in the whole 'destabilise the West with misinformation' team standings that you get this place.
A Tory apologist? I despise the Tories and always have done.
Vlad dissembler? I dislike Putin almost as much as Sunak, Truss, May, Johnson and Cameron.
You're very odd.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 22:26 - Mar 20 with 1117 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 18:55 - Mar 20 by ArnoldMoorhen
An interesting range of answers so far.
I feel there is an outside chance that there will be some "Electrical Sub Station fires" in Czechia, adjacent to storage areas for the 300,000 shells they are buying for Ukraine, once they start being delivered and shift momentum back towards Ukraine.
Another potential target is one of the airbases where Ukrainian Air Force pilots are being trained to fly F16's.
Huge numbers of military age Russians went across various borders at the outset of the war. Some of them will be Special Forces saboteurs.
I misread your OP as a chance of a nuclear strike - which you didn't specify. Hence my going very low.
Chances of a military strike - I guess that's a whole game of chicken, test out the resolve of Nato to respond in kind. As others have said, if Trump gets in that could be the time it might happen. The Baltic states or wherever was most handy to damage the war effort.
Would think it most likely that maybe a stray missile launched - which the Russians could claim was an accident, even though everyone would know it wasn't.
Probability? Maybe 1 in 20 (if Trump gets elected) - 1 in 50 if not.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 18:21 - Mar 20 by mutters
0% unless Putin is about to be ousted and hits the button.
As much as they stick their chests out, and thump about a bit I can not see any logical reason why the leaders would escalate this to that level.
NATO members are supplying Ukraine weapons and information already, even Congress has passed numerous bills to aid them. So they are already in a defacto war with Russia. Russian would have struck by now if they were that pissed off by them.
Only other scenario I could see is that if Ukraine gets NATO membership in the next 12 months then all bets are off the table!
A country cannot be admitted to NATO while it is in conflict.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 02:43 - Mar 29 with 835 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 18:55 - Mar 20 by ArnoldMoorhen
An interesting range of answers so far.
I feel there is an outside chance that there will be some "Electrical Sub Station fires" in Czechia, adjacent to storage areas for the 300,000 shells they are buying for Ukraine, once they start being delivered and shift momentum back towards Ukraine.
Another potential target is one of the airbases where Ukrainian Air Force pilots are being trained to fly F16's.
Huge numbers of military age Russians went across various borders at the outset of the war. Some of them will be Special Forces saboteurs.
Putin says that if NATO airbases are used by Ukrainian F16s on combat missions then they will be a legitimate target.
This is basically Putin trying to stall the entry of the F16s into the war. There are airbases in Eastern Europe equipped and with crews trained to service and repair F16s, but obviously none yet in Ukraine. Putin is saying "Don't even think about allowing the F16s to fly from NATO bases as a way of getting them into the fight quicker."
Poland has announced today that it is increasing SAM batteries in border areas, following recent incursions into Polish airspace by Russian missiles attacking Ukraine. There is an outside chance that the two stories are linked, and that Poland is beefing up defences against missile attacks ahead of allowing Ukrainian pilots to fly combat missions from Polish airbases.
Putin says that if NATO airbases are used by Ukrainian F16s on combat missions then they will be a legitimate target.
This is basically Putin trying to stall the entry of the F16s into the war. There are airbases in Eastern Europe equipped and with crews trained to service and repair F16s, but obviously none yet in Ukraine. Putin is saying "Don't even think about allowing the F16s to fly from NATO bases as a way of getting them into the fight quicker."
Poland has announced today that it is increasing SAM batteries in border areas, following recent incursions into Polish airspace by Russian missiles attacking Ukraine. There is an outside chance that the two stories are linked, and that Poland is beefing up defences against missile attacks ahead of allowing Ukrainian pilots to fly combat missions from Polish airbases.
Interesting, I wonder what the likelihood is of Ukraine needing to use Polish airstrips for the F-16s ? Considering Zelensky's appetite and need for morale boosting news perhaps it would be a tonic for Ukrainians to see very modern warplanes launched from their own soil to destroy the missiles and drones, there again if reprisals from Russia increased then perhaps it wouldn't. There again, if there were fouls ups and/or a disproportionate loss of Russian civilian lives then would that make Russia (as a nation, not just Putin) think twice about this whole wretched war.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:26 - Mar 20 by Guthrum
This chap talks a lot of sense. Especially on the assumptions of what form a war might take.
So, for me, it depends very much upon circumstances. Could be 66%, could be zero. And may be a lot different to what people expect.
[Post edited 20 Mar 14:27]
Anders Puck Nielsen certainly talks some sense, but I don't agree with everything he says.
I agree with his main message that there are two main wrong assumptions:
WRONG ASSUMPTION 1: Russia will fight all of NATO
In the video he rightly says that Russia would not want to take on the whole of NATO but would rather attempt to explore how unified the individual NATO members are in coming to the aid of another member state in an article 5 situation, he suggests Finland as a possible option for Russia. Similarly, I think NATO's main aim is to break Russia's alliance with China.
WRONG ASSUMPTION 2: It will be a war about territory
He's right. Russia has a huge border to defend as it is (with a a relatively small population), so the idea that Russia wants to occupy more land and peoples who hate Moscow is silly. Occupying Eastern Ukraine on the other hand makes sense for Russia - it's generally a Russia friendly area and it serves as a buffer for Russia between NATO members and Moscow. From a Russia perspective it makes sense to push upto the Dnipro River and for NATO countries it makes absolute sense to fund Ukraine to the extent that this does not happen. Russia going beyond the Dnipro makes no sense at all.
Where I think Nielsen is wrong is his idea that Russia could test NATO's unity by invading Finland to see who comes to the rescue. That would be a stupid thing to do. Picking on a small Scandinavian country (and new NATO member) to test support across NATO members would further alienate Russia internationally and may even test China's friendship.
If Russia really wants to test NATO's unity they just need to continue to blame the last (and all future) terror attacks in Russia on Ukraine and see who comes to her defence. Even if a viking ship of blond-haired elves wearing Santa hats and armed with bows and arrows from Helsinki were to attack Saint Petersburg, Putin would find a way to link the attack to Kiev. Macron said earlier in the week that sending troops to Ukraine “cannot be ruled out” - it will be interesting to see if this actually happens and if it does, what other NATO member states join France.
So no, I don't think there'll be a Russian attack on a NATO member but it's very likely that the situation in Ukraine will become even more dire over the coming months.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 07:57 - Mar 29 with 750 views
Let’s not forget behind the bravado and riding semi naked on horses, Putin is terrified of NATO. The military spending and economic power is completely unbalanced against Russia. Any military action against NATO would therefore only happen under hybrid warfare, under the guise of cyber attacks, sabotage, or deniable operations. Wagner seem more interested in making money out of African despots rather than going back to being cannon fodder in Eastern Ukraine.
Trump maybe a wildcard, but I suspect he’d (as Putin has already inferred) prefer a Biden Presidency due to the unpredictability of a Trump foreign policy (Trump will put himself before his country, and could just as easily turn on Putin if it suits Trump to do so).
More likely we’ll see a frozen conflict as both sides become fatigued. From what I’m seeing, the risk of the rest of Ukraine falling to Russia is deemed incredibly low, western companies and banks are continuing to finance trade in western Ukraine (deeming the risk of assets being reappropriated by Russia as they’ve done in the East very low).
I agree with a lot of this. Cyber or EMP attacks (even a nuclear one) would be Russia's chosen war platform.
This guy knew a thing or two about EMP warfare and had a lot to say on the subject of a Russian attack on the West. Worth a listen or a read if you have an hour to spare.
About the speaker (at the time of the video - He died a couple of years back)
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the Executive Director of Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), cyber-attack, mass destruction terrorism and other threats to civilian critical infrastructures on an accelerated basis. Dr. Pry is also the Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to developing policies to counter Weapons of Mass Destruction.
10%. If Russia can finish its Ukrainian meal fast enough, why not go for it? The west is weak, its heads are in the sand. Trump assuming he wins next year won’t lift a finger - why should he? Not sure Biden would now, either. A few old 3rd gen F16s might last a few days but are not going to make a difference.
If I was Putin I’d view the opportunity as right here, right now. Baltic states first (two protect ethnic Russians), Poland second. Swallow it as a buffer zone. There is little to stop Putin, not least because Russia is on a war footing.
Putin as NATO fractures, should ally himself further with Erdogan and the Serbs and bring the Balkans under his umbrella. Assuming all went well, I would demand demilitarisation in Europe with the threat of swallowing Finland if they don’t. Leverage. Spheres of influence.
I’m sure despite the bombast Europe’s de facto leader Macron would go running to the table if Vlad called.
Trump has got just the one thing right. Why should America pump money, resources and people into the defence of Europe when it contributes nothing in real terms to defend itself? Putin knows this and I suspect a three way saw up deal has been discussed between China, Russia and the US.
All absolute nonsense of course. Just musings. But there is a real issue of European countries mugging the US off by not defending themselves, including the U.K. with its piddly little army/militia, a few aircraft and a navy so run down most of what’s left of it rusts in port for lack of crews, even if they could get the electrics to work.
[Post edited 29 Mar 8:39]
1
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 09:14 - Mar 29 with 682 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 08:37 - Mar 29 by Churchman
10%. If Russia can finish its Ukrainian meal fast enough, why not go for it? The west is weak, its heads are in the sand. Trump assuming he wins next year won’t lift a finger - why should he? Not sure Biden would now, either. A few old 3rd gen F16s might last a few days but are not going to make a difference.
If I was Putin I’d view the opportunity as right here, right now. Baltic states first (two protect ethnic Russians), Poland second. Swallow it as a buffer zone. There is little to stop Putin, not least because Russia is on a war footing.
Putin as NATO fractures, should ally himself further with Erdogan and the Serbs and bring the Balkans under his umbrella. Assuming all went well, I would demand demilitarisation in Europe with the threat of swallowing Finland if they don’t. Leverage. Spheres of influence.
I’m sure despite the bombast Europe’s de facto leader Macron would go running to the table if Vlad called.
Trump has got just the one thing right. Why should America pump money, resources and people into the defence of Europe when it contributes nothing in real terms to defend itself? Putin knows this and I suspect a three way saw up deal has been discussed between China, Russia and the US.
All absolute nonsense of course. Just musings. But there is a real issue of European countries mugging the US off by not defending themselves, including the U.K. with its piddly little army/militia, a few aircraft and a navy so run down most of what’s left of it rusts in port for lack of crews, even if they could get the electrics to work.
[Post edited 29 Mar 8:39]
Musings of a three way saw up into Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania. Orwell saw it all.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 09:26 - Mar 29 with 651 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 08:37 - Mar 29 by Churchman
10%. If Russia can finish its Ukrainian meal fast enough, why not go for it? The west is weak, its heads are in the sand. Trump assuming he wins next year won’t lift a finger - why should he? Not sure Biden would now, either. A few old 3rd gen F16s might last a few days but are not going to make a difference.
If I was Putin I’d view the opportunity as right here, right now. Baltic states first (two protect ethnic Russians), Poland second. Swallow it as a buffer zone. There is little to stop Putin, not least because Russia is on a war footing.
Putin as NATO fractures, should ally himself further with Erdogan and the Serbs and bring the Balkans under his umbrella. Assuming all went well, I would demand demilitarisation in Europe with the threat of swallowing Finland if they don’t. Leverage. Spheres of influence.
I’m sure despite the bombast Europe’s de facto leader Macron would go running to the table if Vlad called.
Trump has got just the one thing right. Why should America pump money, resources and people into the defence of Europe when it contributes nothing in real terms to defend itself? Putin knows this and I suspect a three way saw up deal has been discussed between China, Russia and the US.
All absolute nonsense of course. Just musings. But there is a real issue of European countries mugging the US off by not defending themselves, including the U.K. with its piddly little army/militia, a few aircraft and a navy so run down most of what’s left of it rusts in port for lack of crews, even if they could get the electrics to work.
[Post edited 29 Mar 8:39]
'the defence of Europe when it contributes nothing in real terms to defend itself?'
Do you really believe this ?
Try discussing this with Poles or Romanians who are hosting Ukrainian refugees whilst seeing their own social welfare budgets squeezed, with soldiers on the countries bordering Ukraine who have to be on a constant war footing, with nations like Hungary or Czechia where a visceral public debate about alignment threatens to derail the European project. And that European country, Ukraine, that is giving its all for a chance of self determination.
Europe might not quite have the amount of bucks that the United States can contribute but it will have to be the one that spills the guts if the conflict spreads.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 09:26 - Mar 29 by WeWereZombies
'the defence of Europe when it contributes nothing in real terms to defend itself?'
Do you really believe this ?
Try discussing this with Poles or Romanians who are hosting Ukrainian refugees whilst seeing their own social welfare budgets squeezed, with soldiers on the countries bordering Ukraine who have to be on a constant war footing, with nations like Hungary or Czechia where a visceral public debate about alignment threatens to derail the European project. And that European country, Ukraine, that is giving its all for a chance of self determination.
Europe might not quite have the amount of bucks that the United States can contribute but it will have to be the one that spills the guts if the conflict spreads.
My musings were to promote discussion. Nothing more. My understanding of military capability has waned with age.
An interesting article on European defence. Accuracy? No idea. What is interesting is how disjointed the European effort is. It also makes the point that is say Portugal going to be willing to send troops to Latvia? Er can’t see it.
But given the current strength of Poland at this moment, now might be Putin’s opportunity for an easy Polish meal. Let’s face it, he’s mad enough and cares nothing for human life. The aim of Poland is 3% GDP. The scared Baltic states are all pushing up spending.
Most of the rest are under the 2% threshold though have promised more. The U.K.? 2.2% but I suspect further cuts will get it down to 2% or less. The army, which doesn’t even have the capability to move itself around, is set to reduce to 62,000 by the end of the year.
In economic terms, Europe dwarfs Russia. If its potential capability was harnessed, there would be no threat whatsoever. But will it be? Is there the energy and the will with so many other things to deal with? I hope so. I actually do believe Russia’s opportunity is now - if Putin is crazy and determined enough. Well, we know he is the former and we know dictators live in fear and deal with it by thrashing out. As for killing people, I suspect Putin actually enjoys it. Plenty of people do I’m afraid.
This is just devils advocate speculation so please don’t read too much into it.
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 10:14 - Mar 29 with 612 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 10:03 - Mar 29 by Churchman
My musings were to promote discussion. Nothing more. My understanding of military capability has waned with age.
An interesting article on European defence. Accuracy? No idea. What is interesting is how disjointed the European effort is. It also makes the point that is say Portugal going to be willing to send troops to Latvia? Er can’t see it.
But given the current strength of Poland at this moment, now might be Putin’s opportunity for an easy Polish meal. Let’s face it, he’s mad enough and cares nothing for human life. The aim of Poland is 3% GDP. The scared Baltic states are all pushing up spending.
Most of the rest are under the 2% threshold though have promised more. The U.K.? 2.2% but I suspect further cuts will get it down to 2% or less. The army, which doesn’t even have the capability to move itself around, is set to reduce to 62,000 by the end of the year.
In economic terms, Europe dwarfs Russia. If its potential capability was harnessed, there would be no threat whatsoever. But will it be? Is there the energy and the will with so many other things to deal with? I hope so. I actually do believe Russia’s opportunity is now - if Putin is crazy and determined enough. Well, we know he is the former and we know dictators live in fear and deal with it by thrashing out. As for killing people, I suspect Putin actually enjoys it. Plenty of people do I’m afraid.
This is just devils advocate speculation so please don’t read too much into it.
"My understanding of military capability has waned with age. "
It might be worth your while getting up to date with your military knowledge by watching the video I linked in my last post (or reading the transcript). Putin it seems could plunge the whole world into darkness tomorrow if he really wanted to, it seems.
That's not my view, that's the view of a self-labelled "hawkish" former US Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to developing policies to counter Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 10:14 - Mar 29 by ChorleyBoy
"My understanding of military capability has waned with age. "
It might be worth your while getting up to date with your military knowledge by watching the video I linked in my last post (or reading the transcript). Putin it seems could plunge the whole world into darkness tomorrow if he really wanted to, it seems.
That's not my view, that's the view of a self-labelled "hawkish" former US Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to developing policies to counter Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I’ve read the transcript. It was written before Russia invaded Ukraine but has a lot of interest to it. The view is the Russia/China alliance is too strong and Russia’s military capability stronger still - and that the US should be cutting a deal with Russia and China.
If that was the case, the minimum Russia would demand is complete demilitarisation of western Europe including the U.K. with Russia providing ‘security’ for a price. Say 3% of each country’s GDP handed over each year?
The problem with cutting deals with dictators is of course that it never ends there. For example, had Britain surrendered in 1940 after the France disaster - and many wanted to - Hitler would have stripped the country bare, just as he did every other country. He’d never have stopped. They never do.
Of course, while the Russians will win their war in Ukraine, it’s taken longer than anyone, including the author of that article, predicted. The result though is a much stronger military Russian capability in the long term. And hopefully some European heads being removed from the sand. Though I’m not expecting anything from the Downing Street weed and his corrupt cohorts.
Edit: interesting example of differing European attitudes depending on how far away they are:
In it ‘Spain's Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, had asked fellow EU leaders to stop using the word "war" in their summit statements, because people did not want to feel threatened. Mr Tusk said he had replied that in his part of Europe, war was no longer an abstract idea.’
Presumably, little Sunak is more interested in whitening his teeth and finding ways for him and his mates to make the most of their ‘expenses’ before they’re thrown out.
[Post edited 29 Mar 11:26]
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 12:07 - Mar 29 with 554 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 11:09 - Mar 29 by Churchman
I’ve read the transcript. It was written before Russia invaded Ukraine but has a lot of interest to it. The view is the Russia/China alliance is too strong and Russia’s military capability stronger still - and that the US should be cutting a deal with Russia and China.
If that was the case, the minimum Russia would demand is complete demilitarisation of western Europe including the U.K. with Russia providing ‘security’ for a price. Say 3% of each country’s GDP handed over each year?
The problem with cutting deals with dictators is of course that it never ends there. For example, had Britain surrendered in 1940 after the France disaster - and many wanted to - Hitler would have stripped the country bare, just as he did every other country. He’d never have stopped. They never do.
Of course, while the Russians will win their war in Ukraine, it’s taken longer than anyone, including the author of that article, predicted. The result though is a much stronger military Russian capability in the long term. And hopefully some European heads being removed from the sand. Though I’m not expecting anything from the Downing Street weed and his corrupt cohorts.
Edit: interesting example of differing European attitudes depending on how far away they are:
In it ‘Spain's Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, had asked fellow EU leaders to stop using the word "war" in their summit statements, because people did not want to feel threatened. Mr Tusk said he had replied that in his part of Europe, war was no longer an abstract idea.’
Presumably, little Sunak is more interested in whitening his teeth and finding ways for him and his mates to make the most of their ‘expenses’ before they’re thrown out.
[Post edited 29 Mar 11:26]
"If that was the case, the minimum Russia would demand is complete demilitarisation of western Europe including the U.K. with Russia providing ‘security’ for a price. Say 3% of each country’s GDP handed over each year? "
Not sure where the inspiration for that "minimum" deal has come from.
I'd have thought paranoid Russia would be content with deNATOfication of all members since 2000 and the removal of all weapons pointed at Moscow (originally installed to counter an Iranian threat) in those countries and obviously the removal of many or all sanctions against them.
I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.
The alternative to not doing a deal with Russia is try to remove Putin, but there are two problems with that. 1) Who follows Putin? They won't allow another Gorbachev (because they consider him a traitor) and 2) What happens if paranoid Putin turns the lights out on us first?
I'd rather take the peaceful option as proposed by Dr Pry in favour of the two alternatives.
That said Dr Pry (although no longer with us) wasn't living on Russia's border when he made that suggestion, and neither do I.
[Post edited 29 Mar 12:12]
0
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 12:16 - Mar 29 with 545 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 10:03 - Mar 29 by Churchman
My musings were to promote discussion. Nothing more. My understanding of military capability has waned with age.
An interesting article on European defence. Accuracy? No idea. What is interesting is how disjointed the European effort is. It also makes the point that is say Portugal going to be willing to send troops to Latvia? Er can’t see it.
But given the current strength of Poland at this moment, now might be Putin’s opportunity for an easy Polish meal. Let’s face it, he’s mad enough and cares nothing for human life. The aim of Poland is 3% GDP. The scared Baltic states are all pushing up spending.
Most of the rest are under the 2% threshold though have promised more. The U.K.? 2.2% but I suspect further cuts will get it down to 2% or less. The army, which doesn’t even have the capability to move itself around, is set to reduce to 62,000 by the end of the year.
In economic terms, Europe dwarfs Russia. If its potential capability was harnessed, there would be no threat whatsoever. But will it be? Is there the energy and the will with so many other things to deal with? I hope so. I actually do believe Russia’s opportunity is now - if Putin is crazy and determined enough. Well, we know he is the former and we know dictators live in fear and deal with it by thrashing out. As for killing people, I suspect Putin actually enjoys it. Plenty of people do I’m afraid.
This is just devils advocate speculation so please don’t read too much into it.
I won't be reading too much into anything at the moment, the situation is fluid. When I came back in from the garden and looked at the BBC news this is the main story:
'Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has delivered a blunt warning that Europe has entered a "pre-war era" and if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, nobody in Europe will be able to feel safe.
"I don't want to scare anyone, but war is no longer a concept from the past," he told European media. "It's real and it started over two years ago."
His remarks came as a fresh barrage of Russian missiles targeted Ukraine.'
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 12:16 - Mar 29 by WeWereZombies
I won't be reading too much into anything at the moment, the situation is fluid. When I came back in from the garden and looked at the BBC news this is the main story:
'Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has delivered a blunt warning that Europe has entered a "pre-war era" and if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, nobody in Europe will be able to feel safe.
"I don't want to scare anyone, but war is no longer a concept from the past," he told European media. "It's real and it started over two years ago."
His remarks came as a fresh barrage of Russian missiles targeted Ukraine.'
Agreed. Very fluid.
Russia is certainly upping its offensive having, according to the media, stocked up on missiles, including next-gen hypersonic missile. Something the west don’t have, but might in a few years time.
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 12:07 - Mar 29 by ChorleyBoy
"If that was the case, the minimum Russia would demand is complete demilitarisation of western Europe including the U.K. with Russia providing ‘security’ for a price. Say 3% of each country’s GDP handed over each year? "
Not sure where the inspiration for that "minimum" deal has come from.
I'd have thought paranoid Russia would be content with deNATOfication of all members since 2000 and the removal of all weapons pointed at Moscow (originally installed to counter an Iranian threat) in those countries and obviously the removal of many or all sanctions against them.
I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.
The alternative to not doing a deal with Russia is try to remove Putin, but there are two problems with that. 1) Who follows Putin? They won't allow another Gorbachev (because they consider him a traitor) and 2) What happens if paranoid Putin turns the lights out on us first?
I'd rather take the peaceful option as proposed by Dr Pry in favour of the two alternatives.
That said Dr Pry (although no longer with us) wasn't living on Russia's border when he made that suggestion, and neither do I.
[Post edited 29 Mar 12:12]
“ I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.”
I don’t think this argument really holds up. Certainly the Russians were well prepared for sanctions, building up their surplus and cash reserves. However, the Russian economy contracted a massive 10pc - comparible to the impact of COVID on the western economies. No economies in the West have been impacted to anywhere near that level since the invasion. The Rouble was decimated when sanctions were ramped up and as a result the Russian central bank has had to raise the base rate upto 20pc.
mports have become incredibly expensive and western FDI is now non existent. In order to prop up their economy they’ve effectively moved to a total war footing. Western retail and financial services jobs in Russia have been replaced by low skilled jobs churning out shells. Whilst some oil and gas exports have moved to China and India, it’s well below the pre war levels. The pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas to China does not exist (as it did to Western Europe), and even were it to be constructed it would take years. Russian fossil fuel exports are not projected to reach pre war levels until 2030.
I also view the China-Russia relationship more of a shark circling a wounded prey - China are more interested in hoovering up cheap infrastructure and fossil fuels than helping Russia. Like Putin, Xi does what is to China’s benefit, and a weakened Russia is in their interest, especially with longstanding territorial disputes.
2
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:14 - Mar 29 with 479 views
“ I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.”
I don’t think this argument really holds up. Certainly the Russians were well prepared for sanctions, building up their surplus and cash reserves. However, the Russian economy contracted a massive 10pc - comparible to the impact of COVID on the western economies. No economies in the West have been impacted to anywhere near that level since the invasion. The Rouble was decimated when sanctions were ramped up and as a result the Russian central bank has had to raise the base rate upto 20pc.
mports have become incredibly expensive and western FDI is now non existent. In order to prop up their economy they’ve effectively moved to a total war footing. Western retail and financial services jobs in Russia have been replaced by low skilled jobs churning out shells. Whilst some oil and gas exports have moved to China and India, it’s well below the pre war levels. The pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas to China does not exist (as it did to Western Europe), and even were it to be constructed it would take years. Russian fossil fuel exports are not projected to reach pre war levels until 2030.
I also view the China-Russia relationship more of a shark circling a wounded prey - China are more interested in hoovering up cheap infrastructure and fossil fuels than helping Russia. Like Putin, Xi does what is to China’s benefit, and a weakened Russia is in their interest, especially with longstanding territorial disputes.
Russia’s economy is set to grow 2.6% this year on top of 3.6% last year. Unemployment is low, wages are rising. The UKs? Er let’s not go there. The only thing rising here is the tide of sewage on the beaches and in the rivers.
“ I think most of mainland Europe would be very grateful for cheap Russian gas again and trade with a market of 150million people. I think the sanctions have hurt us more than them.”
I don’t think this argument really holds up. Certainly the Russians were well prepared for sanctions, building up their surplus and cash reserves. However, the Russian economy contracted a massive 10pc - comparible to the impact of COVID on the western economies. No economies in the West have been impacted to anywhere near that level since the invasion. The Rouble was decimated when sanctions were ramped up and as a result the Russian central bank has had to raise the base rate upto 20pc.
mports have become incredibly expensive and western FDI is now non existent. In order to prop up their economy they’ve effectively moved to a total war footing. Western retail and financial services jobs in Russia have been replaced by low skilled jobs churning out shells. Whilst some oil and gas exports have moved to China and India, it’s well below the pre war levels. The pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas to China does not exist (as it did to Western Europe), and even were it to be constructed it would take years. Russian fossil fuel exports are not projected to reach pre war levels until 2030.
I also view the China-Russia relationship more of a shark circling a wounded prey - China are more interested in hoovering up cheap infrastructure and fossil fuels than helping Russia. Like Putin, Xi does what is to China’s benefit, and a weakened Russia is in their interest, especially with longstanding territorial disputes.
I'm sure you're right, though I don't have the economic data at hand. The alliance between Russia and China is certainly not as strong as many believe - however they both listen to NATO and western military pronouncements and know that they are in the crosshairs of the collective West - that is what's holding their alliance together I think, not much else. As you say, historically they are no natural bedfellows.
All that said, call me a peacenik if you like but I would prefer better terms with Russia so we in Europe and the Russians can both improve our economies. I feel the US (and perhaps us in the UK) are paranoid of Russia trading with Germany and would prefer to sacrifice Europe to make sure that doesn't happen. I think most people have been desensitised to what a war really means - and that's if the US really knew in the first place.
1
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:49 - Mar 29 with 450 views
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 13:14 - Mar 29 by Churchman
Russia’s economy is set to grow 2.6% this year on top of 3.6% last year. Unemployment is low, wages are rising. The UKs? Er let’s not go there. The only thing rising here is the tide of sewage on the beaches and in the rivers.
Fairly easy to grow out of a contracted economy isn’t it - much like the UK’s ‘boast’ of G7 leading growth after COVID (again only because we shrank the furthest). And you are ignoring the fact that Europes economies did not shrink at all post invasion - we have lower rates but it is compounded growth. Wages may be rising but they are low skilled jobs, and any gains are eroded by increased import prices and 20% interest rates. Conditions for ordinary Russians are not great (as you can imagine given how 5pc here seems high):
“Further tough measures will be needed to slow the pace of capital outflows, reduce the current account deficit and improve Russia’s financial position. That means even higher interest rates, cuts in non-military spending and a slowdown in the domestic economy. As has been the case many times in the past, war will mean hardship for the Russian people”
The Russian economy is smaller than Italy, with a GDP per capita smaller than Mexico, Turkey, and Malaysia, let alone anywhere in Western Europe. I know where I’d rather be…
1
Rather grim Hive Mind question: on 14:08 - Mar 29 with 437 views
I know nothing, but can't help think the last few posts I this thread overcook Russia's strength, while under-estimating Europe's. Particularly Poland abs Finland, who I thought now have pretty powerful capable armed forces.
Talk of peace for a price with Russia and / or western European demiliterisation seems particularly bizarre. Why would we do that? What possible benefit could there be in the long run with such a deal, baring in mind Putin's record? European armed forces may not be in great shape overall, but combined, they must have enough to see off an already over extended Russia?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
