Ukraine

[french frank]

Not exactly a comment likely to bring people onside politically .

Absolutely, it's not. But what I meant was that should a united Ireland have already come into being, those who couldn't bear to live there should not take up a permanent confrontational attitude but settle into a peaceful relationship with all their fellow-countrymen. Or they would be free to leave. Though what they would do if the Scots left the Union …

I was impressed with the exchange between King Charles and Michelle O'Neil when she spoke naturally of the British people and the Irish in Northern Ireland.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Absolutely, it's not. But what I meant was that should a united Ireland have already come into being, those who couldn't bear to live there should not take up a permanent confrontational attitude but settle into a peaceful relationship with all their fellow-countrymen. Or they would be free to leave. Though what they would do if the Scots left the Union …

I was impressed with the exchange between King Charles and Michelle O'Neil when she spoke naturally of the British people and the Irish in Northern Ireland.

If the Scots left the Union they’d probably come to England as millions of Southern Irish Catholics have done over the years because that’s where the jobs are, The attitude of Ulster Scots or Scots Irish if you prefer to nationhood is a lot more complex than your very simplistic analysis implies . Believe it or not two centuries ago plenty of Scots Presbyterians were pro a United Ireland outside Britain.

[Bryn]

Absolutely, it's not. But what I meant was that should a united Ireland have already come into being, those who couldn't bear to live there should not take up a permanent confrontational attitude but settle into a peaceful relationship with all their fellow-countrymen. Or they would be free to leave. Though what they would do if the Scots left the Union …

I was impressed with the exchange between King Charles and Michelle O'Neil when she spoke naturally of the British people and the Irish in Northern Ireland.

Thank you for clarifying your intention. I, for one, have no great problem going along with that. As to "what they would do if the Scots left the Union …", I think their history and their prevailing attitude towards Westminster politics might militate in favour of moving 'back' to Scotland.

[Serial_Apologist]

If the Scots left the Union they’d probably come to England as millions of Southern Irish Catholics have done over the years because that’s where the jobs are, The attitude of Ulster Scots or Scots Irish if you prefer to nationhood is a lot more complex than your very simplistic analysis implies . Believe it or not two centuries ago plenty of Scots Presbyterians were pro a United Ireland outside Britain.

That's true. I can't now remember what it was that turned them against the idea. Don't worry if it's long and convoluted.

[french frank]

The attitude of Ulster Scots or Scots Irish if you prefer to nationhood is a lot more complex than your very simplistic analysis implies . Believe it or not two centuries ago plenty of Scots Presbyterians were pro a United Ireland outside Britain.

I suspect it's like 'The nation is united in grief.' Within the nation attitudes on most things will vary. It's not the political attitudes that unite the 'Ulster Scots'. Possibly not even religion. And certainly not vis-à-vis the EU.

[Ein Heldenleben]

That's true. I can't now remember what it was that turned them against the idea. Don't worry if it's long and convoluted.

Whole theses have been written on this . Do you mind if I don’t ? A starting point is R.F. Foster’s Modern Ireland 1600 - 1972. The book assumes a reasonable baseline knowledge of Irish history - things like O’Neill , the Flight of the Earls , United Irishmen etc .

[HighlandDougie]

I'm not at all sure quite how Ukraine has been transmogrified into a discussion on the wider British Isles but I have recently much enjoyed reading Fintan O'Toole's, 'We Don't Know Ourselves', which deals, inter alia, with a number of the issues mentioned in above posts. While it is very much a "personal history" - as in an autobiographical account of Éire from the year of his birth (1958) onwards, it provides an always interesting and frequently shocking spin on the more recent years dealt with in Roy Foster's magisterial volume cited by EH above - and then takes the story forward.

[Historian]

I'm not at all sure quite how Ukraine has been transmogrified into a discussion on the wider British Isles...

It's a long thread and one of the (many) attractive features of this forum is the opportunity to be discursive.

However, back to our sheep. I have been remiss in not posting links to Prof. Lawrence Freedman's articles on Ukraine for some time.

The first, Constantly Operating Factors, makes some interesting comparisons between the current 'Special Military Operation' and the 'Great Patriotic War' (1941-1945). Stalin, sorry, Putin, does not come out of this well.

Freedman's second article focuses on 'The Economic War'. This has probably received more coverage than other areas he has covered but is still well worth a read.

Both these articles were written before the successful Ukrainian offensive in the north.

[richardfinegold]

Many might view Putin as yet another tyrant in the same way as were the Tsars and then the Socialists – accepted by the Russian people because he represents ‘Russia’. But perhaps the difference in his particular form of tyranny is that - however absurdly - a substantial number of Russian people believed that the Tsars were 'Russia' and the same believed that the Socialists were 'Russia.' Yes, they were all evil thugs like Putin, but people overlooked this because of the aesthetic they represented. There was much good in both the Tsarists and the socialist systems – both granted a certain stability, and the socialists certainly raised living standards for very many. But Putin is just a gangster. He will have to escalate the war now - perhaps by bombing Kyiv and using the same tactics that subdued Chechnya. This won’t work: the Ukrainians are stronger and better armed than were the Chechens – but he will still do it. Could he use a small scale nuclear weapon as some have suggested? I doubt it – what good would it do to create a vast area of uninhabitable wilderness? And if he tries a general mobilisation he will find his people turning against him – who wants to fight and die to defend a Mafiosa? Putin – lashing out like Macbeth - is doomed.

I’m curious at your use of the term “socialist” as the USSR was officially a Communist Country

[Bryn]

I’m curious at your use of the term “socialist” as the USSR was officially a Communist Country

When did the leadership of the Soviet Union describe it as "Communist"? As late as the early 1950s even Stalin referred to "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.".

[HighlandDougie]

To add to Historian's links to Lawrence Freedman's thoughtful essays/articles, there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/18/russia-military-underperforming-ukraine

P.S. USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, no?

[french frank]

Not being a military tactician myself, I was just wondering. It's reported that the Ukrainians have now captured their first village in Luhansk, about 7 miles from Lysychenchko. What about the forces in the south, near Kherson, do they just hold the line waiting to see how things will develop further east? Will the Russians there 'regroup' to defend Luhansk? Nail-biting stuff.

[Historian]

Not being a military tactician myself, I was just wondering. It's reported that the Ukrainians have now captured their first village in Luhansk, about 7 miles from Lysychenchko. What about the forces in the south, near Kherson, do they just hold the line waiting to see how things will develop further east? Will the Russians there 'regroup' to defend Luhansk? Nail-biting stuff.

Well, since you ask... (I should point out that I study military history but I am not in the 'military').

Bilohorivka, which I believe is the village you mention, was the scene of a catastrophic Russian attempt at a river crossing some months ago. It was the last piece of Luhansk province to fall and the first to be recaptured. Ukraine now seems to be concentrating on taking Lyman as a prelude to moving on Lysychansk and Severodonetsk. Another possibility is a larger-scale offensive to retake the rest of north-east Ukraine.

The forces fighting around Kherson will by no means stop their offensive. Strong Russian resistance, combined with Ukraine's desire to avoid heavy casualties when possible, has led to slow Ukrainian progress. However I believe (as far as the 'radio silence' of operational security allows one to tell) that the Russians are suffering much more heavily. Most of their supply lines across the Dnipro (and other) rivers are either cut or working at reduced efficiency. Putin's political-based objective of holding on to Kherson condemns them to fighting on and slowly being ground down.

The Kherson offensive, well signalled beforehand, drew the majority of Russian forces (both in terms of quantity and quality) south which made the Kharkiv oblast offensive possible. Russia is now faced with a deteriorating situation in Kherson province as well as rumours of another Ukrainian offensive towards Vuhledar (near where the battle-lines turn north heading towards the Donetsk/Bakhmut sector). Furthermore their defences in the rest of Luhansk Oblast are likely to be weak both in quantity and quality.

Predictions in war are often dubious, but to me eventual Ukrainian victory seems vastly more likely than either a stalemate or a Russian military 'victory' (frankly incredible). If the rains come before Ukraine secures Kherson then that will make things very difficult for both sides. However, when winter comes one side will be well-prepared and equipped and highly-motivated. The other side will continue to show an inability to carry out most of the basic military functions (e.g. effective reconnaissance, supplying their own side, not attacking pointlessly for purely political reasons).

All the above is purely my opinion based on far too much time spent on the internet since February.

[french frank]

All the above is purely my opinion based on far too much time spent on the internet since February.

I am satisfied Thank you.

Erdogan is saying Putin wants a swift end to the war, so what he [Putin] has in mind is anyone's guess. Politico reports that Erdogan is telling Putin the Russians must give up Crimea too.

PS Telegraph has just reported (speculation?): Ukraine war latest: Russia hints at full mobilisation which would certainly answer my query.

[Historian]

To add to Historian's links to Lawrence Freedman's thoughtful essays/articles, there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...orming-ukraine

Jack Watling is good too HD, thank you for the link/reminder.

A more recent Freedman essay, quoting Hemingway, Gradually, then Suddenly, from 10th September looks at the Ukrainian offensive in the north-east.

Putin's big speech (sham referendums/mobilisation/declaration of war?) has been postponed it seems. It would be interesting to know why: more going on behind the scenes than we realise, perhaps. We may have more to comment on tomorrow. However, while sending huge numbers of under-equipped and badly-trained Russian conscripts may lengthen the war I don't think it will change the eventual outcome.