[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Baker lite]

Yes but, there again, that is not entirely unique within the BBC.

Problem is with your modern day journalist, they consider themselves bigger than the story, never a great look to constantly interrupt when the other person is talking.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Going slightly off topic, does anyone else find BBC’s Naga Munchetty both irritating and rude in her interview technique?

She can be, usually with people who don't answer the question asked or go off at a tangent. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[nicko31]

law
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-un...n-oligarchs-like-abramovich-times-2022-03-03/


yes we can change the law, and being looked at, how far do we go? not sure if those abroad are having their assets seized without compensation, or frozen and will be returned to them once this is over.

Can't Tory Party Chairman Ben Elliot help out, surely je knows which ones are good and bad apples, because they all would have been screened prior to his company offering their services

 

[nicko31]

I haven't followed the UK v EU sanctions stuff closely, but the main thing I've heard is a couple of countries requisitioning large yachts that looked to be about to take off.

That's clearly a different matter than, say, expensive properties in London which aren't going to just take flight the next day.

These assets could be frozen though, ie can't be sold, rented out or have capital spent on them.

 

[beorhthelm]

Mostly when she’s interviewing Government ministers, she is very different when interviewing “victims” or people she sympathises with.

She asks a loaded question and seldom gives the interviewee time to answer in full before interrupting in what comes across to me in an aggressive manner.

Anyhoo, it seems it’s just me from the responses so far, so carry on

its not just you. its not only Munchetty though, many of the TV news presenters feel they need be tough on politicans (both sides) and come across as an interogation. they either want to exctract a policy or an admission of something. if they dont get a short answer they interrupt, if its not the answer they want they ask again.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I haven't followed the UK v EU sanctions stuff closely, but the main thing I've heard is a couple of countries requisitioning large yachts that looked to be about to take off.

That's clearly a different matter than, say, expensive properties in London which aren't going to just take flight the next day.

Agree with this, but that isn't the reason for the need for urgency in ALL sanctions being introduced. If you believe that sanctions are the way to stop Putin (which I do) then the urgency is that there are lives being lost every single day that those sanctions are delayed resulting directly in more deaths. And being the cynic I am, I know that powerful people can move assets very quickly with a few days warning of what's coming.

That's why everybody needs to introduce maximum possible sanctions now.

 

[Baldseagull]

I'm sure one of his generals or from his team said they are capable of firing 500 nukes at once or in a short period of time. Essentially wiping out most countries in the world if he wanted to

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Unlike most countries in the world, the UK can fire back, so long as our subs are in range (12000Km). Not hoping to ever use them, but if our Nuclear capability isn't an effective deterrent, then what have we been spending a ton of money on it for?

 

[herecomesaregular]

It’s all a bit odd isn’t it (to me anyway, who has no understanding of military tactics). Putting a large % of your armoury and personnel in a huge traffic jam whilst your enemy takes delivery of gifts of 000s of anti-tank missiles and RPGs, and then staying there for a week to give them time to plan how to take the whole lot out doesn’t sound like a great strategy………the lack of any Russian air force involvement is also a bit weird.

From a seemingly knowledgeable Twitter feed a while back from Army mechanics examining the photos, it seems:

1 - this area of Northern Ukraine is seasonally very muddy (unlike the Southern areas)
2 - they haven't maintained their tyres probably over the last 12 months (by moving the vehicles around when in storage, for one)
3 - they have cheap Chinese knock offs of Michelin tyres that are of greatly inferior quality
4 - combining 2 and 3 with 1 means the tyres have literally come off many vehicles in the mud and they do not have enough replacements

edit - I'd assume the Russians are confident there is no danger from the air to this convoy.

 

[jakarta]

Unlike most countries in the world, the UK can fire back, so long as our subs are in range (12000Km). Not hoping to ever use them, but if our Nuclear capability isn't an effective deterrent, then what have we been spending a ton of money on it for?

Just a tentative guess, but I think our deterrent was based on the Russians being rational and knowing they would be toast as well?

Not at all sure that applies to Putin.

 

[Igzilla]

Unlike most countries in the world, the UK can fire back, so long as our subs are in range (12000Km). Not hoping to ever use them, but if our Nuclear capability isn't an effective deterrent, then what have we been spending a ton of money on it for?

It seems to me that if the point of NATO is to defend each other, only one of the countries in NATO actually needs to have nukes. Attack one, attack us all, isn't it? Maybe everyone except USA bin them off and instead contribute towards America's costs of maintaining and developing them? Hopelessly naive, I know.

 

[dazzer6666]

From a seemingly knowledgeable Twitter feed a while back from Army mechanics examining the photos it seems:

1 - this area of Northern Ukraine is seasonally very muddy (unlike the Southern areas)
2 - they haven't maintained their tyres probably over the last 12 months (by moving the vehicles around when in storage, for one)
3 - they have cheap Chinese knock offs of Michelin tyres that are of greatly inferior quality
4 - combining 2 and 3 with 1 means the tyres have literally come off many vehicles in the mud and they do not have enough replacements

Yep seen all that........but v interested to see what happens next from either side. As well as the above, apparently the Russians in the convoy are very low on supplies - both food and fuel, and of course they didn't seem to bank on 000s of Ukraines blocking/sabotaging the roads

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Yep seen all that........but v interested to see what happens next from either side. As well as the above, apparently the Russians in the convoy are very low on supplies - both food and fuel, and of course they didn't seem to bank on 000s of Ukraine's blocking/sabotaging the roads

Hungry and desperate Russian soldiers can be a plus and a minus.
Plus side: they could become demoralised and desert the army or simply just do nothing.
Minus side: they could turn to looting, rape, pillage and torture.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It seems to me that if the point of NATO is to defend each other, only one of the countries in NATO actually needs to have nukes. Attack one, attack us all, isn't it? Maybe everyone except USA bin them off and instead contribute towards America's costs of maintaining and developing them? Hopelessly naive, I know.

America pretty much services and maintains our Trident anyway. The Trident missiles themselves are leased from and serviced by the US. We build the Vanguard subs but many of the spec. and parts are of US design / origin.

 

[Eric the meek]

Yep seen all that........but v interested to see what happens next from either side. As well as the above, apparently the Russians in the convoy are very low on supplies - both food and fuel, and of course they didn't seem to bank on 000s of Ukraines blocking/sabotaging the roads

I don't think they predicted the Ukrainians would buy more armed drones from Turkey either.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...s-ukraine-are-sales-not-aid-sabah-2022-03-03/

 

[Baldseagull]

Just a tentative guess, but I think our deterrent was based on the Russians being rational and knowing they would be toast as well?

Not at all sure that applies to Putin.

If Putin is not concerned about his own neck, he would not sit at the opposite end of a massive table when ever he met anyone he was slightly nervous of.

 

[highflyer]

exactly, we must do them legally. we should do them meaningfully, not for show. i dont know if they are for show or legally binding elsewhere.

This government has spent the last decade welcoming dirty money from across the world, supporting the growth of a 'wealth management' (aka 'help you dodge taxes and hide your money') industry, dragging their heels on any kind of increased transparency* and (when forced into it), implementing regulations so deliberately badly, or so slowly that anyone would think they are working in the interests of the most wealthy rather than the majority.

To suddenly be coming over all 'legal' about what can or can't be done now to track down and sanction oligarchs is just another reflection on who they really work for.

* see for example the economic crime bill which has sat on the shelf ready to go, for three years and had (despite many protests) been dropped from the forthcoming parliamentary session by the government until the war forced their hands.

 

[rogersix]

No, people like you actually. I just respond.

That makes no sense

 

[jakarta]

If Putin is not concerned about his own neck, he would not sit at the opposite end of a massive table when ever he met anyone he was slightly nervous of.

I reckon he has watched this and taken it all on board...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9iTZ433zs

 

[nicko31]

This government has spent the last decade welcoming dirty money from across the world, supporting the growth of a 'wealth management' (aka 'help you dodge taxes and hide your money') industry, dragging their heels on any kind of increased transparency* and (when forced into it), implementing regulations so deliberately badly, or so slowly that anyone would think they are working in the interests of the most wealthy rather than the majority.

To suddenly be coming over all 'legal' about what can or can't be done now to track down and sanction oligarchs is just another reflection on who they really work for.

* see for example the economic crime bill which has sat on the shelf ready to go, for three years and had (despite many protests) been dropped from the forthcoming parliamentary session by the government until the war forced their hands.

They have a lot of people that they owe favours to, give them time to dispose of assets, act later when appropriate to do so

Meanwhile pretend to be world beating, leading the way and claim could have only done this if we weren't tied to those unelected bureaucrats

 

[beorhthelm]

This government has spent the last decade welcoming dirty money from across the world, supporting the growth of a 'wealth management' (aka 'help you dodge taxes and hide your money') industry, dragging their heels on any kind of increased transparency* and (when forced into it), implementing regulations so deliberately badly, or so slowly that anyone would think they are working in the interests of the most wealthy rather than the majority.

To suddenly be coming over all 'legal' about what can or can't be done now to track down and sanction oligarchs is just another reflection on who they really work for.

* see for example the economic crime bill which has sat on the shelf ready to go, for three years and had (despite many protests) been dropped from the forthcoming parliamentary session by the government until the war forced their hands.

right, speaks to the same point, people come to the UK to take advantage of our law. our legal system is what it is, we're reluctant to change it so unlikely to change it in instant responce to an event. the economic crime bill will help transparency, unclear it change much for those who have money that people dont think should have money.