Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
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.
And then Orban himself.
Winter will be interesting...
The state withdrawing citizenship is very iffy.
How does it actually work anyways, if you only have one citizenship?
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.
Thermite raining down over Russian occupied Donetsk city right now. This is really weird, either Ukraine are shooting thermite mlrs salvos over it's own city or it is some kind of desperate false flag operation from Russia.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And here comes Poland with 500
Are Poland sending 500 Himars? I don't get that 12 is all the west could muster so far.
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.
Seriously?
Yes, but this isn't news. Poland is in the process of acquiring customized HIMARS systems (most important change the integration on Polish made trucks instead of the standard US model) since 2017, originally they wanted about 160 units. Two months ago they announced they will be acquiring "up to 500" systems. This would give Poland the numerically strongest rocket artillery in NATO and looking at how effective the HIMARS systems are compared to the smaller Russian models maybe effectively, but not in numbers, even in the world