The politician in a democracy acts with the aim of being elected/re-elected, not on the basis of the 'best national interest'. Everyone here knows that supporting Ukraine is the best way to protect our interests, even at the cost of having to make sacrifices (e.g. more taxes). The majority of the electorate is not willing to support Ukraine if this entails costs today, the politician even if he understands that this is wrong, must pander to the voters, who otherwise would not vote for him. This is the reality and the politician is not guilty, it is the voters who have abandoned Ukraine.
The politician in a democracy acts with the aim of being elected/re-elected, not on the basis of the 'best national interest'. Everyone here knows that supporting Ukraine is the best way to protect our interests, even at the cost of having to make sacrifices (e.g. more taxes). The majority of the electorate is not willing to support Ukraine if this entails costs today, the politician even if he understands that this is wrong, must pander to the voters, who otherwise would not vote for him. This is the reality and the politician is not guilty, it is the voters who have abandoned Ukraine.
I misunderstood your first post. If the voters really are that stupid, then yes, their governments may follow the signal and abandon Ukraine. But sometimes governments actually lead, by persuading the electorate to stop being stupid.
The voters aren't exactly incapable of making decisions that benefit them. In general the "wisdom of the crowds" works well. In this situation, a few extremists have managed to peddle their nonsense with great effect. But still, most people, in the UK at least, are not fooled.
More than 80% of voters vote in ridings that are won by the same party every time, regardless of how the election overall goes. Hinterlands vote Conservative and cities vote democratic liberal humanist because they're exposed to more people. Outcomes are determined by the suburbs.
Western electorate thinks that simply being nationalistic at home is enough to protect them on an international level. Not realistic of course but it is what it is.
You are right, however isn't the primary goal of nationalists to prevent millions of Ukrainians from "flowing" into Europe. Surely they would come in the event of any greater success of the current Russian regime in Ukraine?
Compared to that, the migration crisis of 2015 would be an insignificant episode. Nationalists should be afraid of this and do everything to prevent it. But I understand that money doesn't stink and that's why the nationalists won't raise the issue, because the main sponsor of these movements and moods is primarily interested in the disunity of Europe.
The question is, why don't other politicians raise this question to show the illogicality of the nationalists' arguments?
I am not sure that nationalists will not simply try to block the flow of refugees. They can organise all sort of protests against refugees anytime. They lack empathy and they don't see the big picture. See what happens with the Polish farmers for instance.
The migration from Middle East wasn't over in 2015. We just have a deal with Turkey to keep most of them there. I think this is an Ace in Erdoğan sleeve. He can threaten Europe anytime that he will let all the migration pass.
I will check your donation link abd see what I can do.
I am donating regularly for Ukraine since the war started. Unfortunately I do not have the money I want :(
Electorates don't pay too much attention to foreign affairs, as a rule, which is part of the reason why politicians also prefer to focus their attention on domestic policy.
But beyond that, it's simply a fact that - despite the warnings of a few - Western publics, medias, and political and military establishments wildly and counterfactually underestimated Russia. This was a convenient assessment for politicians as well, since it implied that Ukraine could 'win' eventually without their having to develop a complex, unprecedented long-term program of support costing hundreds of billions per year.
The problem is that a lot of people in the West think like "it's not our business", "we can be friends of both sides", or "we are better alone". Anti-EU, anti-NATO, isolationism in the USA, in other words division is gaining ground. "Russia can do whatever the hell they want" :(( On the other hand, Russia is not alone, it is backed by Iran, NK, China and so on.
I am lucky to have 3 different points of view, because I am Italian, I live in Germany and my partner is French. What I see and what is happening in public opinion is that the majority supports the Ukrainians (in Italy and also in France there is still a large segment of the population that is anti-western-usa-nato, but still a minority). Unfortunately, this majority of voters, while sympathising with the Ukrainian people, support them as long as this does not turn into burdens for them (taxes, inflation, etc.). At this point, a rational politician, even though he knows that this is wrong and the voters will pay a lot more tomorrow, can only support the Ukrainians with words or with low-cost measures (e.g. emptying old military warehouses by donating old weapons to the Ukrainians, but if he has to even increase military spending to 2% as already agreed with NATO, then even this becomes unpopular with the voters).
I know. It is the same here. But all these people are missing the point. It's not Ukraine to blame for the rising costs, it is Russia. What the Ukrainians extraordinarily did was to resist. But if they surrendered, then what? Are we OK with that? Can we allow to a country to invade its neighbours, and if those neighbours don't resist, everything is fine? If they made peace now, with Russia keeping Ukrainian land, will we run to kiss Russia? Will the prices go miraculously down? I don't think so. Therefore, better help the people in need and defend the values we have left. I am not saying at any cost - we can try to optimize the cost...
Thanks for this update Tom. Sober as usual. This glide bombing tactics thats VKS is working on, Only apply for the Ucranian and maybe an adversary without a good front line ADN, ot could be refined yo be used against NATO in the baltics? How better prepeared are NATO battle formations? Or it's usless as a AC-130 would be over Russian forces?
At the same time, Su-25 are still using Spread and Pray low quality tactics, si it's still dangerous to get too close to manpads.
I ask it because maybe the VKS is finding a way yo be more efficient un this war, but this maybe don't going to work in any other environment of they concern. Like mastering a useless and time consuming tactic that can't be extrapolated.
First they will use missiles and Lancets to destroy the AD.
Then they will use the airplanes.
Ukraine is too deep for this tactics - there is too much territory in the back to surveil, AD systems hide there and come to the front lines once a month.
This is a trailer from an old computer game, meant to be over the top and referring to alternative WW2 history, but it still manages to be more relevant in for the current war than the majority of experts speaking about it.
While I understand that this is entirely incomprehensible to lots of people monitoring this conflict from the safety of their living rooms, it could be there’s some logic in what people actually fighting there in Avidiivka and similar places, and going through this hell of high explosives, mud, cold, and blood every single day, say.
""""
One recalls how in the past fall, the Ukrainian government admitted that there were basically no fortifications starting 5-10 km 'behind' Avdiivka, and so were authorizing new construction. Even assuming something has been built, 5-10 km behind Avdiivka implies there's not much fortified behind Berdychi, so a retracted frontline would be relatively like an eggshell.
But this wouldn't really be a problem (compared to the alternative of fighting in operational encirclement again), given the defensive hallmarks of this war, if UFOR had historical levels of ordnance and infantry reserves. Indeed, political failures in the West have prevented them from exploiting a golden opportunity to punish an overactive RuFOR offensive, but they're not the ones responsible for staffing in Ukraine. Recent reporting indicates that after Zelensky's purge of mobilization commisars half a year ago, almost no new conscripts have been reaching frontline units, and the dysfunction remains uncorrected. That's just Ukraine imposing the same mistake on itself that Russia did in 2022...
Almost like, as in the case of Bakhmut, it would have made sense to invest in serious counterattacks early in the process (for Avdiivka, this was even March 2023!), when resources and tactical opportunities were more available, to prevent a very tactically-significant and desirable sector from becoming compromised...
Could be because they are running out of Patriot missiles. Raytheon only makes 500 a year for the entire world demand and recently Saudi Arabia has being popping them off like crazy because of Houthi attacks
Thank you for the update Tom. One question. If you would be in charge in Ukraine. Would you risk positioning a Patriot system there to interupt the flow of bombs in the same style as it was done in the northeast of Ukraine (as you thankfully analysed profoundly) or the downing of the A-50?
Thanks for the update!! Enormous respect to the Ukrainian men and women fighting on the frontlines despite the lack of adequate support from the World.
this war cannot be won, the western electorate is simply not rational and incapable of making decisions that benefit them.
Ah yes: it's the 'electorate' to blame for 'decisions'...
Makes sense... 🙄
The politician in a democracy acts with the aim of being elected/re-elected, not on the basis of the 'best national interest'. Everyone here knows that supporting Ukraine is the best way to protect our interests, even at the cost of having to make sacrifices (e.g. more taxes). The majority of the electorate is not willing to support Ukraine if this entails costs today, the politician even if he understands that this is wrong, must pander to the voters, who otherwise would not vote for him. This is the reality and the politician is not guilty, it is the voters who have abandoned Ukraine.
Yeah: can see that in every single 'democracy' there is, the last 30 years...
Translated: Let the bullies run the school, it really is too much trouble to stop them.
The politician in a democracy acts with the aim of being elected/re-elected, not on the basis of the 'best national interest'. Everyone here knows that supporting Ukraine is the best way to protect our interests, even at the cost of having to make sacrifices (e.g. more taxes). The majority of the electorate is not willing to support Ukraine if this entails costs today, the politician even if he understands that this is wrong, must pander to the voters, who otherwise would not vote for him. This is the reality and the politician is not guilty, it is the voters who have abandoned Ukraine.
I misunderstood your first post. If the voters really are that stupid, then yes, their governments may follow the signal and abandon Ukraine. But sometimes governments actually lead, by persuading the electorate to stop being stupid.
The voters aren't exactly incapable of making decisions that benefit them. In general the "wisdom of the crowds" works well. In this situation, a few extremists have managed to peddle their nonsense with great effect. But still, most people, in the UK at least, are not fooled.
The united kingdom is a prime example of how voters vote against their own interests, brexit is just one example.
Populists are easily undermining democracy by pandering to voter's instincts.
As the other poster said, "Prime directive is getting re-elected" - this explains most of the actions of elected politicians.
Few politicians have the "moral fibre" to stand up against their voters desires and lead. Usually, they are elected out of office for this stance.
More than 80% of voters vote in ridings that are won by the same party every time, regardless of how the election overall goes. Hinterlands vote Conservative and cities vote democratic liberal humanist because they're exposed to more people. Outcomes are determined by the suburbs.
The credo of cowardice.
Western electorate thinks that simply being nationalistic at home is enough to protect them on an international level. Not realistic of course but it is what it is.
You are right, however isn't the primary goal of nationalists to prevent millions of Ukrainians from "flowing" into Europe. Surely they would come in the event of any greater success of the current Russian regime in Ukraine?
Compared to that, the migration crisis of 2015 would be an insignificant episode. Nationalists should be afraid of this and do everything to prevent it. But I understand that money doesn't stink and that's why the nationalists won't raise the issue, because the main sponsor of these movements and moods is primarily interested in the disunity of Europe.
The question is, why don't other politicians raise this question to show the illogicality of the nationalists' arguments?
In case you want to support Ukraine, but don't know how (volunter-gov CZ-gov UA cooperation project) https://www.weaponstoukraine.com/filtr-campaign/vsechny-kampane
I am not sure that nationalists will not simply try to block the flow of refugees. They can organise all sort of protests against refugees anytime. They lack empathy and they don't see the big picture. See what happens with the Polish farmers for instance.
The migration from Middle East wasn't over in 2015. We just have a deal with Turkey to keep most of them there. I think this is an Ace in Erdoğan sleeve. He can threaten Europe anytime that he will let all the migration pass.
I will check your donation link abd see what I can do.
I am donating regularly for Ukraine since the war started. Unfortunately I do not have the money I want :(
Donated!
Electorates don't pay too much attention to foreign affairs, as a rule, which is part of the reason why politicians also prefer to focus their attention on domestic policy.
But beyond that, it's simply a fact that - despite the warnings of a few - Western publics, medias, and political and military establishments wildly and counterfactually underestimated Russia. This was a convenient assessment for politicians as well, since it implied that Ukraine could 'win' eventually without their having to develop a complex, unprecedented long-term program of support costing hundreds of billions per year.
The problem is that a lot of people in the West think like "it's not our business", "we can be friends of both sides", or "we are better alone". Anti-EU, anti-NATO, isolationism in the USA, in other words division is gaining ground. "Russia can do whatever the hell they want" :(( On the other hand, Russia is not alone, it is backed by Iran, NK, China and so on.
I am lucky to have 3 different points of view, because I am Italian, I live in Germany and my partner is French. What I see and what is happening in public opinion is that the majority supports the Ukrainians (in Italy and also in France there is still a large segment of the population that is anti-western-usa-nato, but still a minority). Unfortunately, this majority of voters, while sympathising with the Ukrainian people, support them as long as this does not turn into burdens for them (taxes, inflation, etc.). At this point, a rational politician, even though he knows that this is wrong and the voters will pay a lot more tomorrow, can only support the Ukrainians with words or with low-cost measures (e.g. emptying old military warehouses by donating old weapons to the Ukrainians, but if he has to even increase military spending to 2% as already agreed with NATO, then even this becomes unpopular with the voters).
It seems clear that Putin's aggression will go beyond Ukraine, so people may rethink.
I know. It is the same here. But all these people are missing the point. It's not Ukraine to blame for the rising costs, it is Russia. What the Ukrainians extraordinarily did was to resist. But if they surrendered, then what? Are we OK with that? Can we allow to a country to invade its neighbours, and if those neighbours don't resist, everything is fine? If they made peace now, with Russia keeping Ukrainian land, will we run to kiss Russia? Will the prices go miraculously down? I don't think so. Therefore, better help the people in need and defend the values we have left. I am not saying at any cost - we can try to optimize the cost...
Interestingly, 2% is becoming the rule for real. Germany and Frande just announced that :)
Thanks for this update Tom. Sober as usual. This glide bombing tactics thats VKS is working on, Only apply for the Ucranian and maybe an adversary without a good front line ADN, ot could be refined yo be used against NATO in the baltics? How better prepeared are NATO battle formations? Or it's usless as a AC-130 would be over Russian forces?
At the same time, Su-25 are still using Spread and Pray low quality tactics, si it's still dangerous to get too close to manpads.
I ask it because maybe the VKS is finding a way yo be more efficient un this war, but this maybe don't going to work in any other environment of they concern. Like mastering a useless and time consuming tactic that can't be extrapolated.
First they will use missiles and Lancets to destroy the AD.
Then they will use the airplanes.
Ukraine is too deep for this tactics - there is too much territory in the back to surveil, AD systems hide there and come to the front lines once a month.
It works in this war. That's the reality, and a matter of fact.
Everything else is pure theory.
So, why should theory matter more than reality?
This is a trailer from an old computer game, meant to be over the top and referring to alternative WW2 history, but it still manages to be more relevant in for the current war than the majority of experts speaking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9BiUtINy4w
""""
While I understand that this is entirely incomprehensible to lots of people monitoring this conflict from the safety of their living rooms, it could be there’s some logic in what people actually fighting there in Avidiivka and similar places, and going through this hell of high explosives, mud, cold, and blood every single day, say.
""""
One recalls how in the past fall, the Ukrainian government admitted that there were basically no fortifications starting 5-10 km 'behind' Avdiivka, and so were authorizing new construction. Even assuming something has been built, 5-10 km behind Avdiivka implies there's not much fortified behind Berdychi, so a retracted frontline would be relatively like an eggshell.
But this wouldn't really be a problem (compared to the alternative of fighting in operational encirclement again), given the defensive hallmarks of this war, if UFOR had historical levels of ordnance and infantry reserves. Indeed, political failures in the West have prevented them from exploiting a golden opportunity to punish an overactive RuFOR offensive, but they're not the ones responsible for staffing in Ukraine. Recent reporting indicates that after Zelensky's purge of mobilization commisars half a year ago, almost no new conscripts have been reaching frontline units, and the dysfunction remains uncorrected. That's just Ukraine imposing the same mistake on itself that Russia did in 2022...
Almost like, as in the case of Bakhmut, it would have made sense to invest in serious counterattacks early in the process (for Avdiivka, this was even March 2023!), when resources and tactical opportunities were more available, to prevent a very tactically-significant and desirable sector from becoming compromised...
Hello Tom, why the AFU dos not bring any system against the RU jets closer to Avdiivka to block the bombing from the air?
I'll explain this - in detail - in the coming days (is a part of an 'update' I'm preparing already since December).
Could be because they are running out of Patriot missiles. Raytheon only makes 500 a year for the entire world demand and recently Saudi Arabia has being popping them off like crazy because of Houthi attacks
quite a waste, throwing Patriot missiles against drones...
Thanks ..
Thank you for the update Tom. One question. If you would be in charge in Ukraine. Would you risk positioning a Patriot system there to interupt the flow of bombs in the same style as it was done in the northeast of Ukraine (as you thankfully analysed profoundly) or the downing of the A-50?
I'll explain this - in detail - in the coming days (is a part of an 'update' I'm preparing already since December).
Do you know what happening with Zenit position? There are only 700 m between Russians positions there
Thanks for the update!! Enormous respect to the Ukrainian men and women fighting on the frontlines despite the lack of adequate support from the World.
Russian media showing photos that they claim show parts of a GLSDB.
Not a game changer but a useful tool if Ukraine gets lots of them which is probably unlikely.
Also difficult to find suitable targets for these small bombs, possibly useful for ammunition stores roofs