How's this for a conspiracy theory ?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You are missing the point, what can the good men actually do. There has to be a potential successful outcome for the good men otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise in just delaying the inevitable and ending up with more deaths than there would have been. We have reached the point where doing something far outweighs the consequences of doing nothing and perhaps we will stop wasting money on the nuclear option.
You quoted a retired american colonel. I prefer the quote from Retired General Petraeus:

“Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

As for men - when someone has been invaded, the responses have been on a sliding scale:

From armed resistance (to the death)....trying to "live" some kind of normality...right up to active collaboration.

As for the point I was making - in such and other times, folk have to decide where in the spectrum they are and what they wish their legacy to be.
 
The West seems to have become too dependent on China, it's true, but here's something on which to ponder:

‘Make America Great again’ - 'America First' - ‘America jobs for American People’ said former President Trump.
Like most of his simplistic sound bites, that statement might chime well with his fan base, (70 million Americans voted for him), but it has all the intellectual depth of a Kleenex tissue.

Reducing America's dependence on China is not quite as simple as might be imagined. Take that quintessential American company Apple. Most people believe that Apple manufacture their own products, but they don’t make anything – they’re basically a design and marketing company, and a rather successful one too.

No wonder the Apple logo is an apple with a bit taken out of it. It's evocative of the 'Big Apple' but the bite taken out if it is rather larger that the logo suggests, and the country that took the bite in China.

China assembles most of Apple's iPhones in factories in Shenzen, China, (500,000 a day), though Foxconn maintains factories in countries across the world, including Thailand, Malaysia, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Singapore, and the Philippines.

Take a look at the back of an iPhone, iPad, or any Apple product and in minuscule text you’ll see: "Designed by Apple in California - Assembled in China" Many may wonder why Apple chose to outsource all of its production overseas, specifically to China. They might believe that Apple are just out to make tons of money and that’s the sole reason for the relocation, but that's a mistaken assumption.

So why can’t Apple’s gadgets be assembled in the USA? Or in general terms, why can’t most international consumer electronics and computer businesses in the Western World do their manufacturing work internally to create local jobs and boost their economy?

The reason is quite simple - iPhones aren’t manufactured in America because they can’t be - there’s not enough manpower to support the scale of manufacturing of Apple’s products. The factory in China where Apple products, specifically iPhones, undergo final assembly has approximately 230,000 workers. In the USA, there are only 83 cities that have populations as high this one factory’s number of employees. Hence, the number of possible workers in the US is just not enough to cover Apple’s needs.

In China, an estimated 25% of their workforce lives in company-owned dormitories located on the factory property. Many people live and work at the factory. Such jobs are in high demand in China, and they can hire as many people as they need overnight. The speed and efficiency of Chinese manufacturing surpasses anything the US is presently capable of.

In addition to the manpower that China offers, most of the raw materials used to make Apple products are also manufactured overseas rather than in America - a lot are within a short distance of the final assembly plant. Shipping those components to any US-based factories would mean higher costs and potentially, possible manufacturing delays. It would also cost more money to manufacture in America because workers are paid more. There are also expenses on worker benefits, health insurance, and higher taxes. Since companies want to generate revenue, added costs inevitably result in increased prices for goods. This would mean that American-manufactured Apple products would cost more, would become uncompetitive and unaffordable.

Apple’s decision to outsource its manufacturing to China is about who can build the greatest number of Apple products in the shortest time. China is able to remain flexible and immediately adaptable to the needs of Apple. In a report, an Apple executive also stated that the US no longer has the people with the skills that they need. One example is the release of the iPhone. There is a huge demand for it, and Apple knew it needed to come to market as fast as possible. Apple was aware that it wasn’t attainable in US manufacturing and would result in delays. With this, they sought out the service of Chinese factories, and were able to quickly get the iPhone to market.

This is because in China, manufacturers can ask a large number of engineers to work on the required manufacturing overnight. As they have an abundant supply of labour force, this allows them to finish a large capacity of workload quickly. The US simply cannot employ 250,000 workers overnight. This makes China a flexible and capable supplier.

Yes, Apple is reaping the financial rewards, but that’s because China has an abundance of hard-working people with the right skills, which America does not. They are willing to accept demanding jobs which are the norm to millions of Chinese, including workers who have technical skills.

The Chinese are also consumers of course. Greater China (which includes mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) is the third-largest market for Apple by revenue, behind the Americas and Europe.

As to "Designed by Apple in California", well yes Apple products are – but by an English designer.

Sir Jonathan Paul "Jony" Ive - Apple’s Chief Design Officer joined Apple in September 1992, where he remained for 27 years until his departure in November 2019. Sir Jony Ive's first design assignment was the iMAC’ G3’ desktop computer in 1998. It helped to pave the way for many other designs such as the Macbook laptop PC range, iPod, iPhone and iPad.

An ironic twist to the Covid pandemic (or as Trump calls it "The China Virus"), is that not only did they export the virus to us, they also supply the disposable blue mask that now litter the streets, and the LFT/PCR testing kits.

Why Apple is Manufacturing Products in China? Read to Know More!

Apple diversifies supply chain but keeps China at the center

David.
I agree it's a challenge David but just accepting it as being how it has to be is not in my opinion the right answer (and for clarity I'm not saying that you are advocating that it is the right answer!)
 
This will only end when they sit round a table and talk, the west should be pushing for lensky to broker a peace deal and compromise because at the end of the day Russia will take everyone down with them if it comes to it and they have more than adequate firepower to accomplish this.
You sound like a communist
 
So are you saying there is no point in trying to achieve peace through talking? Once you remove the diplomatic links then you are only left with a synario where the war continues and escalation leads to higher and higher casualties, but this is not just a war between two opponents because one has the ability to remove Ukraine off the map, if any of the power plants gets hit then Europe will be in trouble as well. Too many people think denial and burying their heads will make the potential outcome go away but it will not and this is why we must engage in communication and dialogue to bring this to an end before it gets out of control. We should have learnt from the past, Cuba should have been a huge warning to everyone and we are only here today in a large part due to Kennedy but rather than learn we choose to have the cold war and here we are today.
 
So are you saying there is no point in trying to achieve peace through talking? Once you remove the diplomatic links then you are only left with a synario where the war continues and escalation leads to higher and higher casualties, but this is not just a war between two opponents because one has the ability to remove Ukraine off the map, if any of the power plants gets hit then Europe will be in trouble as well. Too many people think denial and burying their heads will make the potential outcome go away but it will not and this is why we must engage in communication and dialogue to bring this to an end before it gets out of control. We should have learnt from the past, Cuba should have been a huge warning to everyone and we are only here today in a large part due to Kennedy but rather than learn we choose to have the cold war and here we are today.
Im obviously missing something, please explain how we "chose" to have the cold war.
If you just cave in to Putin over Ukraine, then where next, Moldova, Poland, the Baltic states? Perhaps you can tell us how far he would have to go before you would consider it appropriate to stop him, Germany, France?
Hitler did much the same, learning by experience that he could get away with invading his neighbours, and the world would talk a lot but do nothing. Only difference is that his was the most powerful military machine in the world at the time, so he was able to conquer most of europe before we were able to stop him. Putin has revealed in Ukraine that his conventional forces are a joke. I doubt he will look to use nuclear weapons, even if he wanted to I cant see the military actually doing it. They no doubt tell comrade Vlad whatever he wants to hear, if only to keep their heads. " Invade Ukraine, sure comrade president should be no problem". But they must know that if Nato becomes involved, which they would in the event of a tactical nuclear weapon being deployed, then the Russian Army, Navy and Air Force would be obliterated in very short order. As to your retired colonels comments I would suggest he knows damn all about submarines. Even the Soviets recognised that their technology was way behind our own and the Americans. Given the way their military has been run down since, that situation is unlikely to have improved. I would be very surprised if any Russian missile submarine at sea wasnt being shadowed 24/7 by a RN or USN attack submarine whose raison d'etre is to kill the Russian boat immediately if necessary, and certainly before it could launch. I mean look at the state of their kit, the flagship carrier in their fleet cant go to sea without a flotilla of tugs in attendance, it breaks down so often it has to be towed most of the time.
 
There are scenarios:
  1. Putin is deposed. He is has clearly failed - destroyed the reputation of Russia for military capability. He only has nuclear left. Outside the control of the west. Plausible.
  2. Putin seeks a ceasefire. A turkey voting for Xmas would have more chance of survival. He would find the loss of face (and possibly his life) unacceptable. Unlikely
  3. Zelensky seeks a ceasefire. Rare for a winning side to seek ceasefire when on a roll and wanting to finish the job. May be perceived by Russia as indicating weakness. Unlikely.
  4. West withdraws support (weapons, sanctions etc) from Ukraine - impact on energy shortages and inflation is just too high. Messages Putin that ultimately we give in. Unwise
  5. A third (neutral) party initiates dialogue to find a solution which saves face on both sides - eg: Russia keeps Crimea, withdraws from Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine joins Nato and EU. Plausible
  6. West continues to support Ukraine advance retaking Crimea and East Ukraine. Leaves Putin with only a nuclear option for survival. Unwise
(1) and (2) are beyond the control of the west. (3), (4) and (6) are unlikely or unwise. A neutral negotiator (5) has some chance of success. Could be Turkey, UN, Switzerland etc.

I would expect negotiations to be underway within 4-8 weeks any longer and either:
  • there may be little which Putin could retain to save face if the Ukraine advance continues
  • hostilities may stall due to winter weather until next spring. Intense war would resume with both sides resupplied, retrained, remotivated, rested etc.
 
Im obviously missing something, please explain how we "chose" to have the cold war.
If you just cave in to Putin over Ukraine, then where next, Moldova, Poland, the Baltic states? Perhaps you can tell us how far he would have to go before you would consider it appropriate to stop him, Germany, France?
Because rather than going out of our way to understand the problems we just decided they were the big bad communist and we had to ensure they did not get the upper hand, history tells us to keep freinds close but potential enemies even closer. The Americans took this to extreme paranoia because they could see huge financial gains to be had in the race for military supremacy and this is clearly shown by there huge defence budget.

That is an assumption that he will carry on into Moldova and the rest, but that would be the end for everyone because Nato would get involved and it would go nuclear very fast. So rather than make an assumption let's take a more hopeful stance and stop fueling the war in Ukraine and get both parties round the table to talk because otherwise we could end up with an extinction event which you just have to accept as a potential outcome.

If it goes nuclear no one will win, there can only be losers because it might be comforting to think of Russian nuclear capabilies as being old and outdated but the reality is, like it or not Russia has embraced Chinese technology and they have some really awsome weapons to guarantee that if they are in a hopeless position they can take out everyone else, you cannot use european thinking when dealing with Russia or China because they are culturally very different. What is so difficult about accepting the side of diplomacy rather than war mongering because to achieve peace does not require war and conflict ?
 
Because rather than going out of our way to understand the problems we just decided they were the big bad communist and we had to ensure they did not get the upper hand, history tells us to keep freinds close but potential enemies even closer. The Americans took this to extreme paranoia because they could see huge financial gains to be had in the race for military supremacy and this is clearly shown by there huge defence budget.

That is an assumption that he will carry on into Moldova and the rest, but that would be the end for everyone because Nato would get involved and it would go nuclear very fast. So rather than make an assumption let's take a more hopeful stance and stop fueling the war in Ukraine and get both parties round the table to talk because otherwise we could end up with an extinction event which you just have to accept as a potential outcome.

If it goes nuclear no one will win, there can only be losers because it might be comforting to think of Russian nuclear capabilies as being old and outdated but the reality is, like it or not Russia has embraced Chinese technology and they have some really awsome weapons to guarantee that if they are in a hopeless position they can take out everyone else, you cannot use european thinking when dealing with Russia or China because they are culturally very different. What is so difficult about accepting the side of diplomacy rather than war mongering because to achieve peace does not require war and conflict ?
I think the difference of opinion is that your version of diplomacy rewards aggression/the indiscriminate use of high explosives against civilians and is unlikely to bring about a lasting peace whereas I would prefer to see the rule of international law enforced and the population of Ukraine able to live their lives the way they want to.

It may be better for us to discuss sharpening!;)
 
Because rather than going out of our way to understand the problems we just decided they were the big bad communist and we had to ensure they did not get the upper hand, history tells us to keep freinds close but potential enemies even closer. The Americans took this to extreme paranoia because they could see huge financial gains to be had in the race for military supremacy and this is clearly shown by there huge defence budget.

That is an assumption that he will carry on into Moldova and the rest, but that would be the end for everyone because Nato would get involved and it would go nuclear very fast. So rather than make an assumption let's take a more hopeful stance and stop fueling the war in Ukraine and get both parties round the table to talk because otherwise we could end up with an extinction event which you just have to accept as a potential outcome.

If it goes nuclear no one will win, there can only be losers because it might be comforting to think of Russian nuclear capabilies as being old and outdated but the reality is, like it or not Russia has embraced Chinese technology and they have some really awsome weapons to guarantee that if they are in a hopeless position they can take out everyone else, you cannot use european thinking when dealing with Russia or China because they are culturally very different. What is so difficult about accepting the side of diplomacy rather than war mongering because to achieve peace does not require war and conflict ?
I think the paranoia started with Stalin. You only have to look at the fate of most of the POW returned to the Soviets after the war, they were either shot or sent to the Gulag. Those that survived were marked for life as being ideologically suspect, why? Simply because they had experienced what things were really like on the outside, and so knew that the communists had lied to them about how great things were in the Soviet Union. This was a cancer that could not be allowed to spread. so I think you will find it was the communists who were largely the ones who chose to isolate themselves. I think the most likely outcome in Ukraine is that Putin will be overthrown, either by the military, and the ordering of any form of nuclear attack might just be what tips them against him, or by a popular uprising. They are lying to their own people about casualties, this cannot be concealed forever. When you have tens of thousands of Russians wanting to know where their brother, father, son or husband has got to, sooner or later the truth will come out. The casualty figures in Afghanistan are often said to have been a major factor in the downfall of the old regime. By any reckoning they have surpassed those figures in Ukraine, and in a matter of months rather than years. We have seen recently how many Russian men are leaving the country rather than be called up. How long before Putin starts emulating "Uncle Joe" by shooting his own troops for retreating. He is increasingly looking like a loser, who is seeing events spiralling out of his control. He has been used to bullying his way to what he wants for years, now that isn't working anymore he doesn't seem to have a plan B.
 
Grozny, Aleppo, Crimea, Donbas, Ukraine 2022.

The western response to Crimea was
1. continue building Nord stream 2
2. buy more Russian gas
3. go to the football World Cup
4. continue investing in Russia.

Complete lack of statesmanship on the part of the west. Crimea invasion in 2014 should have been a wake up call and the above items all stopped. Putin may then have got the message. Instead we have the current situation with huge loss of life, our economies disrupted, huge cost, Putin backed in to a corner and risk of nuclear war.

Reminds me of Rhineland, Austria, Munich, Sudetenland, Czechoslovak, Poland.
You forgot South Ossetia and Transnistria
 
This is why I believe the only way to de escalate this is by talking and compromise
If you are talking about a ceasefire and talks then Russia is very unlikely to leave the land they currently occupy and the talks would go on for years. No lasting peace is possible with Russian troops west of the Dnipro. At some future date they could and probably would strike westwards to take Odessa and make Ukraine land locked.

For a lasting peace I can see no other way at the moment, other than forcing Russia out of all the land on the right bank of the Dnipro, including Kherson City.
 
Prior to Crimean invasion keeping Ukraine out of NATO was perfectly negotiable. Even after Crimean invasion Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO. Look at Sweden and Finlands reaction. Sweden has been neutral for 200 years, back to Napoleon times, stayed out of ww1 and ww2, not neutral now.

I think the Russian invasion is an attempt to re establish the USSR. It’s a land grab pure and simple dressed up as something else.
To add to this
I the Baltic region of NATO there had previously been only a few thousand alliance forces in the region, intended to serve as a tripwire which would be overrun in the event of a Russian attack. The presence of US and western European soldiers among them, however, was intended to leave Moscow in no doubt that those countries would send in large reinforcements. Ie no large NATO forces on Russias borders which could be seen by Russia as a threat to them.

Here is an article giving the Estonian PM‘s view on this
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-engli...be-wiped-off-the-map-under-current-nato-plans
Here are some quotes from it
- “She said the alliance’s current plans envisage that the Baltic states would be overrun, but then be retaken 180 days later.”
- “Noting that the invasion of Ukraine has been going on for over (about) 100 days, Kallas said: “If you compare the sizes of Ukraine and the Baltic countries, it would mean the complete destruction of countries and our culture.”
- ”Commenting on the current plan to “lose [territory] and liberate it afterwards”, Kallas pointed out that atrocities in Bucha near Kyiv were committed by Russian troops within 80 of the invasion. “Now everyone sees that this tripwire concept doesn’t really work,” the Estonian prime minister stressed.”

To me this is a very valid point and NATO is taking it seriously.

So another impact of this invasion is likely to be long term more NATO troops stationed close to Russian borders. Bad outcome for us all, including Russia.

Unfortunately dictators like Putin only respect strength and exploit weakness. The West failed in 2014 with the pathetic response to the Crimean invasion. Appeasement did not work with Hitler and it has not worked with Putin.

Edit- I have been feeling and saying for some time prior to February this year that “this Putin guy worries me”. Did not follow it up, look in to it further, email my MP or do anything else. Did not see this coming. But the West politicians should have seen the dangers, particularly Germany and its reliance on Russian gas.
 
A third (neutral) party initiates dialogue to find a solution which saves face on both sides - eg: Russia keeps Crimea, withdraws from Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine joins Nato and EU. Plausible
Overall a very good analysis. Your example would be a reasonable outcome but Russia would have gained nothing by the invasion, I cannot see it being accepted by Putin. He will want to retain all he holds and as I said before “No lasting peace is possible with Russian troops west of the Dnipro. At some future date they could and probably would strike westwards to take Odessa and make Ukraine land locked.”

I hope something can be agreed to give a lasting peace but cannot see a route to it at the moment.
 
Because rather than going out of our way to understand the problems we just decided they were the big bad communist and we had to ensure they did not get the upper hand
That may well have been the case then
but since 1991 Russia has not been communist, we have the oligarchs. I thought the emphasis since then was closeness through trade. Germany and others dependant on Russian gas, lots of western companies investing in Russia.

We had the “peace dividend” and reduced military spending. Removed troops from the continent eg BAOR.

The whole idea was trade not war, Russia joined the G7/G8 in 1998 and the WTO in 2012. This policy has now failed.
 
  • hostilities may stall due to winter weather until next spring. Intense war would resume with both sides resupplied, retrained, remotivated, rested etc.
From what little I know of the area I think conditions for fighting are actually better in the winter in the sense that stuff doesn't sink into the mud so easily.
It may be that the Russian tank superiority in numerical terms would come to the fore....
 
Overall a very good analysis. Your example would be a reasonable outcome but Russia would have gained nothing by the invasion, I cannot see it being accepted by Putin. He will want to retain all he holds and as I said before “No lasting peace is possible with Russian troops west of the Dnipro. At some future date they could and probably would strike westwards to take Odessa and make Ukraine land locked.”

I hope something can be agreed to give a lasting peace but cannot see a route to it at the moment.
Sadly I don't think there is a route to leave whilst Putin remains in place. The outcome of the war is too closely linked to his own future, If they lose the war then he will fall, so he doesn't have much option but to carry on. The only hope is for someone, the military or the Russian people, possibly his oligarch former mates, to decide that the cost in men, money and Russia's reputation is such that it is just not viable to continue, and remove him. His successor can withdraw, blaming the whole escapade on Mad Vlad, and the world can return to something approaching normality.
 
From what little I know of the area I think conditions for fighting are actually better in the winter in the sense that stuff doesn't sink into the mud so easily.
It may be that the Russian tank superiority in numerical terms would come to the fore....
Or the freezing conditions will harm the poor conscripts that they will give up?
 
Or the freezing conditions will harm the poor conscripts that they will give up?
Yep - from the early part of the invasion the cold weather was a home team advantage. The away team thought they were on exercises in Belarus and were woefully under-prepared food\gear wise.

I think the current analysis from a few quarters is that winter will favour Ukraine again.
 
Back
Top