Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap

it very much millwall will be splicing the reaction to show Russia being bullied at the Un for standing up to Nazis

all optics in Russia the older generation who grew up under soviet rule will lap it up

whilst the younger generation who have to fight have no other option :/
 
Ive just signed up to Chat GPT. Asked it how to resolve this war. The answer is quite interesting. Very Corbynesque.


Resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a complex and multi-faceted issue, and there is no easy solution. However, here are some steps that politicians can take to bring about a peaceful resolution:

  1. Dialogue: Politicians from both sides need to engage in dialogue to find a diplomatic solution. This can be done through high-level talks or mediation by a third party.
  2. Negotiation: Both sides need to be willing to compromise and negotiate in good faith to reach a peaceful settlement. This might require concessions from both sides.
  3. Ceasefire: A ceasefire should be established to prevent further loss of life and destruction. It's important that all parties agree to a ceasefire and adhere to it.
  4. International Pressure: International pressure can be applied to encourage both sides to come to the negotiating table and reach a peaceful resolution. This can be done through economic sanctions or other forms of diplomatic pressure.
  5. Humanitarian Aid: Humanitarian aid should be provided to those affected by the conflict, such as refugees and those living in conflict zones. This can help alleviate suffering and build goodwill between the parties involved.
  6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: The parties involved should agree to establish conflict resolution mechanisms, such as a joint commission or an independent arbitrator, to resolve any future disputes that may arise.
Overall, the key to bringing about a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a willingness by all parties to engage in dialogue and negotiation, to compromise, and to work towards a shared goal of peace and stability in the region.


You say both sides need to be willing to compromise. What is the best course of action if one side refuses to compromise?

If one side refuses to compromise, it can make it very difficult to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In such a scenario, it's important for the other side, along with the international community, to continue to press for dialogue and negotiation.

Here are some potential actions that can be taken in such a situation:

  1. Diplomatic pressure: The international community can put pressure on the side that is unwilling to compromise through diplomatic channels. This could include economic sanctions or other forms of diplomatic pressure.
  2. Mediation: A neutral third party could be brought in to mediate the negotiations between the two sides. This could help to bridge the gap between the two sides and find a mutually acceptable solution.
  3. Confidence-building measures: Confidence-building measures can be used to build trust between the two sides. This might include things like a ceasefire, the release of prisoners, or the establishment of safe zones.
  4. International legal mechanisms: International legal mechanisms can be used to hold the parties accountable for their actions and to push for a resolution to the conflict. This could include taking the conflict to an international court or tribunal.
Ultimately, the key to resolving a conflict where one side is unwilling to compromise is to continue to push for dialogue and negotiation, and to explore every possible avenue for reaching a peaceful resolution. It's important to remember that even small steps towards peace can have a significant impact, and that progress can be made even in difficult circumstances.
Until any future peace talks are successful, in the meantime is it right that NATO supplies weaponry to the Ukrainian army?

The question of whether NATO should supply weapons to the Ukrainian army is a complex one, with arguments on both sides.

On the one hand, supplying weapons to the Ukrainian army could help them defend themselves against aggression and deter further aggression from Russia. It could also level the playing field between the Ukrainian army and the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

On the other hand, supplying weapons could escalate the conflict and lead to further bloodshed. It could also increase tensions between Russia and NATO, potentially making it more difficult to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

Ultimately, the decision to supply weapons to the Ukrainian army is a political one, and depends on a number of factors, including the specific nature of the conflict, the likelihood of escalation, and the potential impact on the wider region.

It's worth noting that NATO has not supplied lethal weapons to Ukraine in the past, and any decision to do so would require the agreement of all NATO member states. Additionally, the focus should be on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and any action taken should be in service of that goal.
 
Ive just signed up to Chat GPT. Asked it how to resolve this war. The answer is quite interesting. Very Corbynesque.

You say both sides need to be willing to compromise. What is the best course of action if one side refuses to compromise?


Until any future peace talks are successful, in the meantime is it right that NATO supplies weaponry to the Ukrainian army?

Bloody hell. I wouldn’t expect anything that anodyne even from Corbyn. :D
 
Ive just signed up to Chat GPT. Asked it how to resolve this war. The answer is quite interesting. Very Corbynesque.





You say both sides need to be willing to compromise. What is the best course of action if one side refuses to compromise?


Until any future peace talks are successful, in the meantime is it right that NATO supplies weaponry to the Ukrainian army?

Well you certainly can't accuse it of having an opinion.
 
The (very confusing and weird) times we live in. This could also go in the 'Things that make you feel old thread'...


I dunno, subcultures fighting subcultures isn't exactly new. Just a change of clothing. There's also probably a moral panic element to this, which the article gets at in its last few paras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
Not even a Russian thing really, the fan aspect is just another way of being in a tribe to reinforce your difference to the tribe you are fighting (see football)

'Fight club': Gang brawls see hundreds of teens meeting to scrap in park
i saw a BBC documentary about childhood in the maybe 30s? early 20th century UK cities...basically it was postcode wars but worse, regular beatings and stabbings, and worse because enemy area was just a few streets away, never mind a full postcode
 
i saw a BBC documentary about childhood in the maybe 30s? early 20th century UK cities...basically it was postcode wars but worse, regular beatings and stabbings, and worse because enemy area was just a few streets away, never mind a full postcode
plus ca change as the french would have it
 
Disheartening if Substantiated.
Not really. I mean I support the effort to help Ukraine, but Ben and Jerry were literally hippies who ended up running a multi-million dollar company almost by accident. It's pretty much on-brand so far as I can tell.
 
View attachment 367581




JimW - how's the ICC arrest warrant on Vlad being reported in China?
Not noticed it on my usual cursory scan of the headlines, will have a look in a bit.
Had a check, plenty of articles but mostly blogs and other social media. Range of views as there's pro and anti Russia camps. Nothing official came up on a quick search but didn't check the big party papers directly.
 
Last edited:
Reports that Russia is re-commissioning/upgrading T54s which a lot of commentators are ridiculing, but if you have enough expendable crew then it makes complete sense An old tank can still do more damage and draw more fire than no tank
Numbers can be as decisive as technological superiority, its a long established Russian military doctrine
 
Reports that Russia is re-commissioning/upgrading T54s which a lot of commentators are ridiculing, but if you have enough expendable crew then it makes complete sense An old tank can still do more damage and draw more fire than no tank
Numbers can be as decisive as technological superiority, its a long established Russian military doctrine
Yep I've oftern thought this why people laugh at Russia using old stuff. It's still a fucking tank!!
 
Yep I've oftern thought this why people laugh at Russia using old stuff. It's still a fucking tank!!

This is very true. They are deathtraps, but they are deathtraps that - if they can be deployed in enough numbers - will soak up anti-tank missiles, and who's guns are quite capable of being used effectively against anything that isn't a much more modern main battle tank.

We think they'll be used as one-shot-wonders - they they'll be placed at the front edge of a Russian unit to take the brunt of Ukrainian firepower, and then driven passed, and If they break down they'll be left with no effort to repair or recover them.

They might be used, instead, as additional fire support for Ru infantry units, both to give momentum and to help with dealing with machine gun posts and dug in Ukr positions. Whether they'd try to keep the tanks going in this case is a matter for debate - it would be advantageous if they can, but it's questionable as to whether they either have a people to do it, or the spares support.

It's not all unicorns though - the armour on them is wildly obsolete. Simply any anti-tank weapon produced with by NATO or the SU since about 1970 will go through them like clap in Love Island. Swathes of burning tanks is unlikely to improve morale.

The other thing, a more international thing, is that it doesn't look great - nothing says 'not going to plan' like bring 70 year old tanks onto the front line. As time goes on Ukraine's tank fleet is getting newer, but Russia's is getting older...
 
This is very true. They are deathtraps, but they are deathtraps that - if they can be deployed in enough numbers - will soak up anti-tank missiles, and who's guns are quite capable of being used effectively against anything that isn't a much more modern main battle tank.

We think they'll be used as one-shot-wonders - they they'll be placed at the front edge of a Russian unit to take the brunt of Ukrainian firepower, and then driven passed, and If they break down they'll be left with no effort to repair or recover them.

They might be used, instead, as additional fire support for Ru infantry units, both to give momentum and to help with dealing with machine gun posts and dug in Ukr positions. Whether they'd try to keep the tanks going in this case is a matter for debate - it would be advantageous if they can, but it's questionable as to whether they either have a people to do it, or the spares support.

It's not all unicorns though - the armour on them is wildly obsolete. Simply any anti-tank weapon produced with by NATO or the SU since about 1970 will go through them like clap in Love Island. Swathes of burning tanks is unlikely to improve morale.

The other thing, a more international thing, is that it doesn't look great - nothing says 'not going to plan' like bring 70 year old tanks onto the front line. As time goes on Ukraine's tank fleet is getting newer, but Russia's is getting older...

It certainly makes the decision to supply depleted uranium ammunition with the tanks even less understandable.
 
It certainly makes the decision to supply depleted uranium ammunition with the tanks even less understandable.
Not at all. I know Russian competence has been in short supply, but if they're going to do things even slightly right then T-55s will not get within 20 miles of a modern MBT. It would be a complete death sentence. The DU rounds are for the T-90s.
 
It certainly makes the decision to supply depleted uranium ammunition with the tanks even less understandable.

The opposite. If Russia has more tanks, Ukraine has to kill more tanks in the same period of time - that means shooting at the absolute cusp of effective range - and DU rounds will kill modern tanks at 5km. This then allows the Ukrainians to concentrate on the antiques roadshow trundling towards them that can only effectively fire at 2-3km. HESH will kill a T-55 at 5km, but not an upgraded T-72 - only APFSDS will do that.
 
As regards the old tanks, I read recently that a lot of RU tanks (and UKR I believe) are being used in more of an indirect fire/artillery capacity. So that would render the lack of armour on the "antiques roadshow" less of a liability as they are essentially self propelled guns. I don't know how effective they would be, not knowing fuck all about Russian tank guns, old or new, but there may be a role for them in that as well as ammo sponges/mobile bunkers?

(Asking rather than telling).
 
Back
Top Bottom