Jump to content

Ukraine: Holding


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this has been mentioned before (this thread moves fast), but regarding Putin's nuclear deterrence order:

Quote

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin ordered his nuclear deterrent forces to be placed on a “special regime of combat duty”. The Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, has now clarified what this meant: the increased manpower devoted to Russia’s strategic nuclear triad: land-based strategic nuclear rocket forces, sea-based nuclear deterrents in the northern and Pacific fleets and its fleet of long-range strategic bomber aircraft that can carry nuclear weapons.

This is not a big change in the state of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which remains on a certain level of readiness even during peacetime. US and UK officials have suggested that they have observed no change in Russia’s force posture. This means, for example, that they have not observed the dispersal of land-based missiles, the loading of aircraft with nuclear warheads, or movement in the central storages where Russia keeps its sub-strategic nuclear warheads.

So far it appears it was more of a calculated threat from Putin, which (weirdly enough) is somewhat good news, but who knows where the threshold is for 'existential threat to the Russian state'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Khrushchev at the end of his reign did not have his hands on the tiller of power anywhere near as firmly and tightly as Putin does now. Khrushchev had spent months out of the country (allowing the plot to gather momentum and support) and he had been pursuing a policy of anti-Stalinism which was extremely unpopular with the old guard who'd been around during Stalin's day. Khrushchev was also slightly older than Putin is now, and was genuinely tired and was happy to retire. He had his moments, but he was an egomaniac with a cult of personality, at least not to the same degree as Putin.

I fail to see how any of these differences make it more likely the regime will assassinate Putin, compared to Khrushchev's removal.  In fact many of these differences suggest the opposite.  Again, the argument that Putin will be killed lacks any real empirical basis.  Particularly for making such a determinative statement.  As for if Putin himself believes it's likely he would be, that's just wholly a guessing game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Any new information on the pinch of sanctions?  Any new information about Russian efforts to mitigate for sanctions?

Well, Alexandr Boris de Pfeffel Johnson stood up in the House of Commons today and ignored every single question asking why he hasn't yet sanctioned a single London-based Oligarch. He is also inexplicably allowing the banks he has 'sanctioned' eighteen months to allow their clients to move their money our of the country.

So at least something is going well for the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Well, Alexandr Boris de Pfeffel Johnson stood up in the House of Commons today and ignored every single question asking why he hasn't yet sanctioned a single London-based Oligarch. He is also inexplicably allowing the banks he has 'sanctioned' eighteen months to allow their clients to move their money our of the country.

So at least something is going well for the Russians.

Again… what the fucking hell???

Confidence motion… yesterday???  Why are the tories backing this turd in human form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Again… what the fucking hell???

Confidence motion… yesterday???  Why are the tories backing this turd in human form?

Scot, if you really want your mind blown, have a read about the time Johnson, when Foreign Secretary, used spycraft techniques to ditch his Special Branch close protection officer in order to travel alone to Italy for a bunga bunga party at the castle of a 'former' KGB agent.

It should be noted that after this event, Lebedev was awarded a peerage by Johnson without ever donating a penny to the Conservative Party.

Hmmm. Nothing to see here.

As for your final question there...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Scot, if you really want your mind blown, have a read about the time Johnson, when Foreign Secretary, used spycraft techniques to ditch his Special Branch close protection officer in order to travel alone to Italy for a bunga bunga party at the castle of a 'former' KGB agent.

It should be noted that after this event, Lebedev was awarded a peerage by Johnson without ever donating a penny to the Conservative Party.

Hmmm. Nothing to see here.

As for your final question there...

 

:angry2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So at least something is going well for the Russians.

 

It would be a crazy irony that after days of virtue signalling a lot of garbage start to emerge about the very same politicians. We know that many have shady business, but Putin might know the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

This is a bad bank that has been protected for far too long, but the article itself details how this is decidedly incidental to the sanctions and the links to Russian oligarchs are rather minor and/or tenuous.  I'm absolutely shocked David Sirota and his site would obfuscate things in order to attack his political enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for any Swedish speakers (since the article itself in Swedish):

Is this saying 400 Swedes have vaguely said they're interested in joining Ukraine's international legion or that 400 Swedes are actively making preparations/already on their way?

Because if it's the later, it's been less than a week and Sweden's just a single country, I imagine many other countries would have proportionally similar numbers. This could turn into the international brigades from the Spanish Civil War all over again; though hopefully with a better outcome this time.

ETA: E.g.,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine many western leaders have their money squirreled away next to that of drug dealers and international crime lords. That's why Credit Suisse is protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a bad bank that has been protected for far too long, but the article itself details how this is decidedly incidental to the sanctions and the links to Russian oligarchs are rather minor and/or tenuous.  I'm absolutely shocked David Sirota and his site would obfuscate things in order to attack his political enemies.

Yes, also, was 100% shitposting on my part.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Because if it's the later, it's been less than a week and Sweden's just a single country, I imagine many other countries would have proportionally similar numbers. This could turn into the international brigades from the Spanish Civil War all over again; though hopefully with a better outcome this time.

Propping up the Ukrainian forces with international brigades was something I half seriously suggested a couple of days as a step of escalation that I then immediately dismissed as unlikely and far too dangerous in this day of age. Today I come home to find the headline that the German government is saying that it won't stop you from joining...

... I feel like it's totally turning into a Spanish Civil War situation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Think about that. Do you want your law schools to be funded by the Russians or the Chinese? Or do you think if US law schools (or Canadian or UK or whatever country) get donations from some scum-bag American billionaires (and there are quite a few people on this board who equate 'billionaire' automatically with 'scum-bag') there's no difference between those donations and Russian or Chinese scum-bag billionaire donations? In for a penny, in for a pound?

I'm pretty much among the bolded, despite the occasional patronage from a couple for my partner -- and though we have spent time together, even in the guest houses of one of their palatial estates -- we are not friends, and there is no doubt whatsoever, that if their arts patronage isn't serving  purpose of both amusement and political - i.e. getting them seats on all sorts of boards of foundations with others of their kinds, they stop. 

I and others here in the US, particularly those of us who have ties to US academia think about what FB has brought up all the time because we are directly affected by this, and its incredible negative impacts upon the very concept of education and learning, and thus have been against it for decades already.  Essentially this international funding from the international plutocracy has turned our very concept of learning into tools for educating even those whose declared mission is to destroy the US into building first class weapons of every kind -- while at the same time allowing their nations of origin not even bother investing in education in their own nations -- and see what's happening as an inevitable side effect to education in this nation from very top to bottom.  Our universities are real estate monoliths operated to be wealthy spectator sport franchises and military research centers.  The same among the monolithic tech giants of silicon valley, with much investment etc. from Russian billionaires and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...