Peter wrote:
Britain had Maggie, who had balls.
You know it is funny to hear that there are some who claim Putin would not have made his move if Merkel was still in power. I wonder if it is true and if so, why.
And one thing is very similar between Argentinia’s force in the Falklands and the Russian one in Ukraine: Both were told they were coming as liberators and both were apparently surprised not to be welcomed by the natives with salt and bread. I think the fact that particularly the conscripts and enlisted men must have realized in the first minute of the conflict that they were massively lied to must have hit their morale in the core.
Of course there is one massive difference to the situation in Ukraine. In the Falklands, the nuclear capable country was the attacked party, while the attackers had no nukes. The Blackbuck rides were a message to Argentina more than a real defensive mission: We can strike your homeland and we can fly a bomber whose main role is nuclear deterrent right to Buenos Aires! It was not even said, didn’t need to be. The very fact that Black Buck was done was a very powerful message to Galtieri. The Belgrano was the 2nd. The actual fight on the islands was the consequence: Galtieri did neither bring in his Navy post loss of the Belgrano nor did he re-enforce the troops.
In the case of Ukraine, it is a nuclear powered superpower being the agressor, hence being capable of holding anyone who would normally rush to the defense of Ukraine at bay. So all the balls the west can show realistically have been shown with the sanctions and delivery of defensive weaponery to Ukraine. And if you seek a parallel to the Black Buck rides, there are B52’s as well as AWACS and tankers in pretty much a combat air patrol very close to the border, very openly visible for everyone.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In the case of Ukraine, it is a nuclear powered superpower being the agressor, hence being capable of holding anyone who would normally rush to the defense of Ukraine at bay.
I think another bad thing about both Ukraine & North Korea is that it makes it obvious now, that you have to have nukes to survive as a country. :(
End of de-nuclearisation.
arj1 wrote:
I think another bad thing about both Ukraine & North Korea is that it makes it obvious now, that you have to have nukes to survive as a country. :(
End of de-nuclearisation.
It very much looks that way yes.
Some interesting reading here
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Putin would not have made his move if Merkel was still in power.
It’s hard to read the mind of a madman, so perhaps. But don’t forget hat Merkel paved the way for this mess. By her lukewarm reaction to Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea, to non-interference in Syria where Putin crossed one ‘red line’ after the other and got away with it (Obama being complicit there) to the biggest mistake of all: make Germany totally dependent on Russian energy. Anybody who has any brains could see that this was a recipe for blackmail. There are some who claim that Merkel was doing Putin’s job all along. I don’t subscribe to that view, but looking back at her actions while in power, one has to wonder.
172driver wrote:
It’s hard to read the mind of a madman, so perhaps.
It appears those who know him are quite divided on his mental state. For many, what happens now is the logical consequence of years of warning unheeded by the West and Ukraine… for others he is irrational. I guess we will find out in due course.
172driver wrote:
But don’t forget hat Merkel paved the way for this mess.
Hindsight is a great thing, isn’t it just. I think lots of people were simply too naive and really thought that Russia is too much integrated now within the Western economy and needs the West more as the West needs Russia. There are many who say that binding Russia in these kind of contracts such as for gass and oil but also other things would preserve the peace. They were wrong obviously but was it so clear as many experts say now?
Crimea was a huge mistake, yes. So was that the Donbas conflict was not addressed much more forcefully while it was a regional conflict and the Minks accords enforced by external observers / peace keepers such as it is still done in ex Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Again, a lot of naivity and good faith gone bad.
172driver wrote:
There are some who claim that Merkel was doing Putin’s job all along. I don’t subscribe to that view, but looking back at her actions while in power, one has to wonder.
It should not be forgotten that she grew up in Eastern Germany and was a child of her times, as much as she later became the head of a conservative movement, which more and more became conservative in name only. A lot of people were shocked when she wished for a GDR pop song to be played at her good bye ceremony. I don’t subscribe to this either, if anyone is doing Putin’s bidding to this day it is former Chancellor Schroeder, but it is well possible that her actions were influenced by her heritage.
172driver wrote:
Anybody who has any brains could see that this was a recipe for blackmail.
You can argue that it works both ways. Yes, Germany is dependent on Russian oil and gas, but Russia is 100% dependent on the foreign currency this brings and, the blackmail right now is still not cutting off gas (even though it has been hinted) but pure and simple MAD if someone stirrs. Cutting off Russia from foreign currency and from it’s income from the West is as harsh a threat to Russia than cutting off the West from Oil and Gas. We can see the effect of the economic isolation now.
So yes, with hindsight, one can always claim tactics employed were wrong. The West put it’s bet on Russians liking the new way of life enough to fight for it, only to find out that that fight has been stifled for years. Yet we don’t know what actually will happen if sanctions continue. It is very hard to take away liberties once gained without massive fallout for a government which imposes such things, as many governments found out during Covid alone. What happens in Russia now is much more brutal than any Covid restrictions, yet the Russians are under a very harsh regime and can not protest as openly as people can in the West. Dissatisfaction will grow however and I am not confident that the Russian lies to their own people will keep them quiet for ever. Nor will the Oligarchs, whose world has collapsed to a much higher extent than anyone else’s in Russia. I can not really see any of them backing Putin any further, it is just that things like this do not get done openly.
Clearly the West has underestimated those primitive nationalist goals vs the complacency of Western style living and access to money and goods, as far as their rulers were concerned, clearly the West has not acted forcefully enough in previous conflicts. after all what happens in Ukraine now is nothing new: See Georgia, see Chechnya, see Syria. The only difference is that it is at our front door. But I think it’s too easy to simply blame the way Russia was treated before the war, as the leap of imagination that Putin would throw away all his achievements for Russia of his reign in one simple stupid act of war.
Perhaps it’s all down to someone being in charge for too long. It is the reason why countries tend to limit presidential terms to 2 or 3. Any more than that and the leader begins to think they are omnipotent and the people around them only tell them what they want to hear.
To blame Merkel or Obama for facilitating this invasion is for the birds. You can just as easily blame Biden, Trump, May, Johnson, Macron etc.
Perhaps they all need an official crystal ball.
But yes EU leaders are now agreeing to be more self reliant for energy, defence and food. Will that make the world a safer place? We will see.
But we should remember that the idea behind the EU and behind the UN was to be more open so that wars and particularly WW3 could be avoided. Since the cold war could anyone really have foreseen it coming from Russia and not from North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, all of which have nuclear facilities?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The Blackbuck rides were a message to Argentina more than a real defensive mission: We can strike your homeland and we can fly a bomber whose main role is nuclear deterrent right to Buenos Aires! It was not even said, didn’t need to be.
The Vulcans had long retired from nuclear duties by the Falklands (and were on the verge of retirement, full stop). All nuclear duties had been taken over by the Royal Navy. The Vulcans were all flying in camo livery, not anti-flash white. By the early 80s, the UK didn’t have any nuclear weapons that could be loaded onto a plane.
It did send a message though, and it forced Argentina to withdraw its air force to Argentina, as they feared the Port Stanley airfield would be put out of action (and their planes bombed along with it). This change of tack by the Argentinians made life much easier for the Navy Harriers, who were now fighting aircraft that had to worry about fuel endurance – forcing this change did a lot more damage to the Argentinian effort than the bombing of Stanley ever did.
gallois wrote:
Perhaps it’s all down to someone being in charge for too long. It is the reason why countries tend to limit presidential terms to 2 or 3. Any more than that and the leader begins to think they are omnipotent and the people around them only tell them what they want to hear.
One lesson to be learnt from it for sure, even though that lesson is not exactly new. And a lot of countries need to be very careful not to fall into the same trap.
It gets really dangerous if a country comes to the point where many believe only their current leader is up to the task of running it so therefore he must be granted life long presidency. That is pretty much what Putin achieved when he changed the constitution allowing him to pursue further terms in office. Maybe that is where the alarm bells should have gone off much shriller than when he occupied Crimea.
gallois wrote:
But yes EU leaders are now agreeing to be more self reliant for energy, defence and food. Will that make the world a safer place? We will see.
I think what has not rung home for many is that it may well be a massive dampener to globalisation. Countries notice that dependency is dangerous. Calls for coming back to a domestic economy which can satisfy the domestic need get louder. And I guess there may be some good in that, as it is really a huge risk depending on almost monopolies for grain, oil, gas e.t.c. which can go wrong really really fast. Also the realisation on whom are we dependent for what has hit some people who really had no idea:
- China for medical supplies (Mask shortage at the beginning of Covid)
- Ukraine as a exporter of grain important enough the fear famines if it is not available? I guess not many knew that.
- The dependence on Russia for Gas was known, I was not that much aware for oil as well?
The list goes on. What about microchip shortages? What about shortage of part supplies and other stuff? Was it always normal to wait e.g. for a new propeller for a year?
gallois wrote:
But we should remember that the idea behind the EU and behind the UN was to be more open so that wars and particularly WW3 could be avoided.
Exactly and mutual dependence on trade was one of the pillars of that. The implications of a guy deciding that was no longer important to him will be huge.
gallois wrote:
Since the cold war could anyone really have foreseen it coming from Russia and not from North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, all of which have nuclear facilities?
Obviously not many have counted on that otherwise Russia would have been dealth with differently in the past.
The interesting bit will be what lessons the other potential agressors take home from this.
I recall reading quite a perceptive article (in The Guardian I think) a week or two ago about how the problem the west has with this stuff is not being prepared to knuckle down for the long haul.
The gist was that some sort of action (sanctions) is usually taken whenever Russia crosses some line, but then what happens is the more influential western nations have an election, a change of government, and someone new comes in who is keen to normalise relations so they go and shake hands with Putin, remove the sanctions, etc.
The suggestion was that this time, regardless of what happens next – even if Russia withdraws and claims the special operation is over – the west needs to treat Russia like North Korea for the foreseeable future.
