The Idiocy of War

In reply to Ben Wildsmith

Wishful thinking is as valid a response to potential incipient Armageddon as cataclysmic catastrophising. Not "eccentric" just different. Anyhow, nothing that anyone types on here will make one iota of difference to the outcome, we're just a dozen or so very ordinary people out of eight billion. Let's not go getting above ourselves.

In reply to Ben Wildsmith

I still think your assertion that a nuclear armed foe cannot be vanquished by conventional means is flawed. Let's not forget that communist North Vietnam achieved a staggering victory over the United States of America in that war. The USA could have used a nuclear weapon to decide the matter, and technically 'won' but the wider world order at the time, plus the awful PR it would have caused would have made it a very pyrrhic victory indeed. China has warned Putin over going down the nuclear route, even at a tactical level, and there are very grave doubts indeed that Russia now even possesses a delivery vehicle that is reliable enough given the recent regular failures of the new RS-28 Sarmat. The risk of Putin ordering the use of nuclear weapons is propably only theoretical. If it deters doddery old presidents from allowing the use of longer range weapons on Russian territory then the policy has worked. however, this needs to be balanced by the fact that these weapons have already been used on Russian territory, as they've been used against targets in Crimea and also Donetsk and Luhansk - all of which are now part of the Russian Federation according to Putin. In any case, it won't be long before Ukraine's own long range missile, Palianytsia is in production, (it may well be already, but being stockpiled) and used to augment Ukraine's already impressive results using DIY drone systems that seem to be having dramatically effective impacts on Russian arms depots - which is already having a huge effect on the front line. Of course, no one can rule out that Putin would use a nuclear weapon, but it's mostly the case that he knows that threatening to use a nuke has the desired effects on some western leaders. However, rational analysis would suggest that Putin is blowing smoke. He's not irrational, out of control or incapable of engaging in peace talks, but he is unwilling to do so in any meaningful way. We only have to look at how well the Minsk Accords worked. It's also very easy to see how impactful Russian propaganda has been on the extremes of right and left in politics. We still see the lie being promoted as to how Ukraine is run by nazis, which is very far from the case. There is no far-right representation in the Verkhovna Rada, and the most any far-right 'nazi' party has achieved in any election there is a miserable 2%. Even the UK has more nazis in parliament than Ukraine. It's also the case that in polls taken prior to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, for example, that only a very small minority, in the order of 5% or so were in favour of Russian control, and figures for Donetsk and Luhansk were even more strikingly low, which is quite astonishing given that all these areas were predominantly Russian speaking and happy with the autonomy granted to them by Kyiv. There might have been some concern over the very misguided attempt to suppress the Russian language, but that policy hardly got off the ground, and in any case, the Russian invasion has, if anything, done far more to engender language shift from Russian to Ukrainian. No one denies that ultimately peace talks will be needed, but unless the world is prepared to accede to Putin's desire for what will just be a temporary cease fire, then some kind of 'victory' is going to be neccessary and to that end Ukraine must be armed and helped to win to the point where Russia sues for peace. As it is, Russia could collapse very suddenly indeed, no one saw the Prigozhin's revolt coming, and things are getting tougher within Russia for ordinary people who could well get to the point where they have had enough, and that could also be the case with much of the military -it's happened before, twice, in 1905, upon losing the Russo-Japanese War, which precipitated a revolution, and again in 1917. The fact that Russia's economy is growing at 4% shouldn't worry anyone, as that's really just an accounting figure, and all that growth is due to war production, which is itself beginning to falter due to lack of not only components due to economic sanctions, but also due to severe labour shortages. In terms of oil and gas exports, much of that has now ceased as Russia needs it all itself and the only gas route to Europe is due to close down at the end of the year because Ukraine is not going to renew the contract that allows Russian gas to be delivered through the pipeline that runs through Ukraine. Ukraine is also likely to target yet more of Russia's oil infrastructure and much of Russia's ghost fleet of tankers is likely to be flouted in the near future too, thus making it difficult for Russia to export oil. War is never a good thing, but it's always been the case that the best recommendation when it comes to schoolyard bullies is to whack them hard so that they leave you alone in future. Try to appease them and they'll come back and bully some more. It needs to be remembered that it is Russia that invaded Ukraine, violated Ukrainian sovereignty so it has the right to defend itself and reclaim lost territories.

In reply to Jeff

I remember reading of the daring commando raids on German heavy water production in Norway as a teenagerin the 1970s. Sadly, it is quite possible that messing up Iran's nuclear capabilities a wee bit might well be tackled similarly by undercover Israeli forces, for very similar reasons. There is no-one quite like a cell of Mossad operatives for sustaining deep cover.

In reply to Ben Wildsmith

Yes, that is exactly what I typed, Ben. Some of us miss your whimsical observations and penetrating personal insights from a couple of years ago. Some of us even bought your book. Try not to get so dragged down by the direness of all this. Listen to a few more Tom Lehrer songs from 60 years ago, mebbe. They are still strikingly current to this very day. Very little has changed since then, not really. He was delighting us with witty wisdom while the Cuba crisis was unfolding. And we so needed him back then. We still do. But he's in his nineties now, and we must look elsewhere. We look to you.

In reply to Annibendod

I doubt anyone under 80 would be impressed that you had any sort of a relationship with Henry Kissinger, even if only a correspondence.. His reputation has been somewhat recalibrated since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but isn't that always the way? Yesterday's heroes and shining lights rarely impress succeeding generations' fondness for revisionism.