> And he also wants to be NATO chief now apparently.

Because of his organisational skills, studious attention to detail, subtle diplomatic nuances, commitment to multi-national alliances, deep military background and experience, uncorruptible track record of refusing Russian finance, and his discipline in handling sensitive documentation that he doesn't leave lying around on the sofa of the Downing Street flat

> How many men is Ukraine losing? Will they evantually run out of manpower?

Casualty rates are often reported as being broadly equal, so it could come down to a crude equation of whether Ukraine can retake territory before Russia would inevitably win a numbers game

At the moment Ukraine has been able to regain territory at a rate to suggest that they can get over the line. If the front deadlocks though, then that becomes a different equation

What happens however if they push Russia up to their border? Does Russia continue firing from the other side? In which case does Ukraine then have to cross the border?

It's not dissimilar to the way medieval armies were structured with various Dukes and nobles commanding private armies but which were periodically pooled to form some sort of national identity (when they weren't fighting each other or trying to support their own preferred candidate to become king)

It's not just about deaths in the first wave though, it's what it does to the food chain and the drinking supply

Every time I read comments like this (and yes they invariably come from Americans) I'm just relieved that the great hive mind of Reddit is no where near the decision making apparatus

Perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten us as to your level of expertise in the field, because assurances like "I doubt" (any of their missiles work) and "I think" (we've got better defences than we know of) doesn't really fill me with any confidence

It's a really bad bet to place

That was my first thought lol

We release 700 when win, but then we lose to the great satan and arrest 10,000

> A mistake many of us have made is to see Russia as a rational actor and think they will do what they should do. Meanwhile they insist on doing these irrational blunders.

In truth, there were plenty of things operating in support of Putin's judgement that you would describe as rational, which people seemed blind to. I'm not sure that the 'mad-man' thing really works to the extent that Reddit says. You didn't need to be privy to 'top secret' information to see how it built up either. You would be perfectly capable of looking at the chronology of events and concluding that the invasion was inevitable and the logical extension of what he'd be doing for a decade

1: Putin was known to have been furious about how NATO corrupted a peace-keeping no-fly zone in Libya and turned it into an offensive action, that picked a side. Never again, was his thinking. I feel this was a really important touchstone moment, the significance of which is often overlooked and gets absolutely zero media comment. Don't forget that Obama was persuaded to join this action at the prompting of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. Vice President Joe Biden was known to have favoured non-intervention. Putin might be looking at Biden's lack of enthusiasm and mistaking good judgement for weakness. It needn't be the thinking of a mad man therefore, but rather someone who thinks he's got a read on Biden, and he's betting that this is Biden's default reaction

2: In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea with no serious consequences

3: America failed to involve themselves in Syria. Again it was Clinton who was more enthusiastic for action against Assad. It was first David Cameron (whose non-participation owed more to parliamentary mismanagement than any intent) and later VP Biden who persuaded Obama (during their famous 'rose garden walk') not to commit to Syria. Only the French formally adopted a proposal to engage, and they were left on their own

4: Russia by contrast did decide to intervene in Syria and enjoyed a modicum of success in doing so, even to the point where they attacked and helped destroy some western proxies (notably the FSA). This has to have served to embolden Putin, encouraging him to conclude he was more effective than he was

5: A new President (Trump) then handed over American bases in Syria to the Russians and allowed them to get on with it. Again, this has to signal to the Russian's that the American's will stand aside in the face of Russian aggression

6: Having co-opted the Kurds into the fight against ISIS, American foreign policy changed again when President Trump abandoned them and allowed the Turks and Syrians a free run on his erstwhile ally. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that when the chips were down, America would abandon another loose ally who is neither part of the NATO alliance nor particularly woven into the fabric of the west

7: Russia poisoned the Skripals and faced little more sanction than a few diplomats being sent back. Indeed, there's a been a whole host suspicious deaths occurring all over Europe and North American with no one making much effort to sanction Russia

8: During all this time of course, Trump is also working to undermine the western alliance, questioning the value of NATO and starting to open up fault lines

9: Throughout this period Russia is launching a series of global disruptions from political interference campaigns, cyber/ ransomware attacks against western infrastructure, cutting internet cables in Norway, or destroying satellites in space. None of this draws any retaliation from the west, indeed, it seems to generate approval in some quarters!

10: Putin then watches the chaos of another American withdrawal (Afghanistan this time). Crucially this is another Biden decision where Joe has signalled a preference to disengage, and having failed to train another army to add to the Syrian opposition and Iraqi's, Russia might be forgiven for thinking there is a structural problem here and America can't train a resistance

11: Although I doubt he ever regarded the EU as military threat to Russia, he has to have been further encouraged by the appetite in western Europe for his gas and oil. Was the EU (an organisation that tends to stay within its borders and has never engaged in any military activity of consequence) likely to face off under the threat of the loss of their gas supply in support of a peripheral state that wasn't even an official candidate member? It was Germany and France after all who led the western resistance against the Iraq war, Italy is of little consequence, and the most belligerent member state in the bloc is no longer a member

12: Finally he meets Xi at the Beijing Olympics to agree their 'no limits' pact

When you take all these incidents together over the 10 year + timeframe, I'm not sure you'd call it mad? There is plenty of evidence there to make you conclude its a calculated gamble, and plenty of fair winds blowing to indicate that Putin would get away with it. You can certainly say it was an error of judgement, but an error you can perhaps begin to understand the path that led him to make it. Making a mistake in judgement however needn't be the same as being mad

Let's be honest, had a handful of American states voted Republican, America's position today would be to denounce Ukraine and support Russia. That's how precarious this was (and still is to a degree).

Obviously not confident enough to leave the country himself just yet?

It takes some people decades to discover what Greta has concluded at the age 20 (and some never do, because they earn little living bouncing between global fountainheads talking to each other)

I'm inclined the quote Jean Claude Juncker when discussing the Eurobond crisis

> We all know what needs to be done. It's just that no one has worked out how to do it and still win an election

This goes to heart of the problem. Whereas people will routinely answer opinion polls positively when it comes to the environment, what they really mean is that they're in favour of everyone other than me making a more concerted effort

> Why the hell are they spending so much money on UK politicians?

Probably because all those who hold positions of influence only last about 3 weeks so the cycle has to start again

Well if it runs anything like the last time the Russians accused the British of something, I suppose we'll have the French believing them again and demanding that the British prove that they didn't!

I'm sure about 20% of the American population will believe them (and Tucker Carlson) especially when they discover that Britian doesn't import gas from Russia, and Liz Truss voted to re-introduce fracking at about the same time (something that's been reversed again since). And that's before they consider the bad blood with Brexit

yep ... there's plenty there for conspiracist to cite as proof I fear