Ukraine

[Joseph K]

things look grim in the short term for the entire western world.

It varies though. I understand in France the rise in the cost of energy is capped at 4%. (Perhaps off topic, this...)

[Serial_Apologist]

It varies though. I understand in France the rise in the cost of energy is capped at 4%. (Perhaps off topic, this...)

...Definitely germane...

[teamsaint]

It varies though. I understand in France the rise in the cost of energy is capped at 4%. (Perhaps off topic, this...)

True, it will hit countries and people in different ways. There are going to be big bills to pay one way or another either for govt or individuals.

[Historian]

It varies though. I understand in France the rise in the cost of energy is capped at 4%. (Perhaps off topic, this...)

No, I don't think so. The energy crisis is largely a product of the Ukraine invasion after all.

The criticism of Boris Johnson on this thread arose because of his most recent visit to Kyiv, so again relevant.

However, whatever many people in the United Kingdom think of our current caretaker PM he is obviously highly regarded in Ukraine. This reflects the considerable and early support given by both the British government and the country at large.

[french frank]

However, whatever many people in the United Kingdom think of our current caretaker PM he is obviously highly regarded in Ukraine. This reflects the considerable and early support given by both the British government and the country at large.

I don't disagree with that, but on the other hand it's exactly the kind of action a British bulldog prime minister would take - more to create an impression in the world as to help Ukraine (my cynical view - just ignore me!). But not the worst policy by any means as far as Ukraine is concerned.

Meanwhile, back to the Russians, 1) they've bombed another railway station and killed many civilians, 2) Putin has authorised an increase to the troops of 137,000 and 3) they're deliberatly burning off millions of pounds worth of gas daily, seemingly on purpose to avoid shutting down the facility. On 2) will these be unwilling conscripts given the seeming difficulty in getting volunteers? On 3) at least those b/millions won't be available for the Putin war chest; though the environmental damage caused could be disastrous.

[Historian]

Both interpretations of Boris' policy are plausible, they could even co-exist.

There is no military value in the attack on the Ukrainian station: it's just state terrorism designed (if any thought went into it at all) to cast a blight on Ukraine's Independence celebrations (which were deliberately muted this year for reasons of safety).

The Russian military will be gaining over 100,000 conscripts in October anyway, to replace those whose term will have expired. In the current state of affairs i.e. a 'Special Military Operation' they are not supposed to be sent to Ukraine. If they do go to the battlefront I don't envy them (not that being in the Russian military is a bed of roses anyway).

This is separate from the announcement of the additional number of troops which you mention: they have to be 'volunteers' I believe. However, it's essentially meaningless as the Russian armed forces are perennially understrength by a much greater number. So, another example of the parallel universe of Mr. Putin.

Can't comment on the gas aspect of your article as I have not seen this story, however Russia's energy reserves are a wasting asset: if the EU can weather this winter then his embargo/restriction of gas exports will have less and less effect.

[french frank]

The Russian military will be gaining over 100,000 conscripts in October anyway, to replace those whose term will have expired. In the current state of affairs i.e. a 'Special Military Operation' they are not supposed to be sent to Ukraine. If they do go to the battlefront I don't envy them (not that being in the Russian military is a bed of roses anyway).

This is separate from the announcement of the additional number of troops which you mention: they have to be 'volunteers' I believe. However, it's essentially meaningless as the Russian armed forces are perennially understrength by a much greater number. So, another example of the parallel universe of Mr. Putin.

The '100,00 new conscripts' is a figure interesting to speculate on. No knowing how many of the 100,000 'retirees' were a) already dead or b) invalided out anyway. And of course the Russians have ways of persuading men to sign contracts for a similar fate.

Can't comment on the gas aspect of your article as I have not seen this story, however Russia's energy reserves are a wasting asset: if the EU can weather this winter then his embargo/restriction of gas exports will have less and less effect.

BBC story this morning. Yes, the west will have to tough it out. But the further loss of revenue will hit Russia too. I'm inclined to think the current crop of Tories would be more willing to contemplate 'wastage' at home from Covid than similar wastage in Ukraine: I judge from the recent pronouncements of the two leadership contenders.

[Historian]

The '100,00 new conscripts' is a figure interesting to speculate on. No knowing how many of the 100,000 'retirees' were a) already dead or b) invalided out anyway. And of course the Russians have ways of persuading men to sign contracts for a similar fate.

Thank you for the link to the gas story: more unfortunate consequences of the Russian invasion. Hopefully this will accelerate the movement towards renewable energy.

Russia is experiencing severe problems recruiting anything like the numbers it needs, despite offering (but not always paying) growing monetary bonuses. Furthermore, the quality of troops being recruited is low as they have few if any limits regarding age, health or military experience (even recruiting troops direct from prison apparently). The training is rushed and adversely affected by losses sustained by Russian training units transferred to active duties.

So, Russia can add numbers (with difficulty) but their combat value is negligible. This helps explain their very slow progress in the last two months (if not longer).

[EnemyoftheStoat]

I'm inclined to think the current crop of Tories would be more willing to contemplate 'wastage' at home from Covid than similar wastage in Ukraine: I judge from the recent pronouncements of the two leadership contenders.

Well, they're going to need something diversionary at some point; that's when Covid at home will suddenly become the thing to blame, even though it's burbling along all the while just under the surface.

[teamsaint]

Well, they're going to need something diversionary at some point; that's when Covid at home will suddenly become the thing to blame, even though it's burbling along all the while just under the surface.

The high level of non -covid excess deaths ought to be the focus of healthcare right now , which are certainly being exacerbated by long waiting times for ambulances and A and E, to give just two examples.

But finding diversion seems all too easy for those in govt . However, sooner or later the worm will turn. And then the Labour opposition can join in perhaps…..

[Dave2002]

If Russia can cut off gas supplies - presumably with some form of very large tap (valve) - then deliberately flaring it off seems totally unjustified. Climate vandalism - but then - that would seem to fit in with the general policies!

Maybe flaring off gas really is the least bad option - but it doesn't seem good to this not so well informed observer.

[Historian]

It now seems that Ukraine has started the process of "rolling back" the Russian invasion (as hoped for in my last post about a week ago). I am not expecting a large-scale sweeping offensive towards Kherson, but steady progress in a number of smaller attacks would be a realistic prospect I think. Ukraine has severely disrupted Russian supply lines which has evened up the disparity between the two sides. There is a 'window' of 4 to 6 weeks before the autumn rains shut down offensive operations for a time.

Significant Ukrainian success in this theatre would have effects out of all proportion to any ground recaptured.

[Dave2002]

I don’t understand why this wasn’t started in 2014.

[Bryn]

I don’t understand why this wasn’t started in 2014.

For one thing, back in 2014, there was less united western support for Ukraine and the history of which state Crimea was allocated to was, to put it mildly, muddy, and had much to do with the Soviet Union's perceived administrative convenience.

[Historian]

I don’t understand why this wasn’t started in 2014.

I am assuming that you mean the Ukrainian efforts to re-take Crimea, parts of Donetsk and Luhansk (and the other areas taken over this year).

As Bryn correctly states, there was much less Western support before. Ukraine's forces were beaten in 2014 and there was no question of being able to carry on an active conflict. Not only was there limited support for Ukraine but also measures taken against Russia were limited: in effect Putin 'got away with it'. Ukraine makes the point that the current war effectively began in 2014 and has been 'frozen' since then.

Western European states, notable Germany, continued to entrust their energy security to Vladimir Putin, rather than inflict severe sanctions on his criminal regime. Angela Merkel was one of the prime movers of this policy.

However, Ukraine has never accepted the illegal invasion and takeover of their sovereign territory. They have spent the intervening years building up their military strength as well as their civil society and democracy. Events have shown that they were wise to do both.