Best Of

Back on topic I don't see a resolution.

The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.

It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.

I don't think many Palestinians, certainly the democratically-elected government of Gaza, wants a two-state solution.

There haven't been elections in almost 20 years in Gaza, so I'm not sure where your "democratically elected" line comes from.

I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."

Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.

I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.

I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.

They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.

*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.

Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.

However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.

FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.

I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.

One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.

From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.

Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now.
Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.

Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia

I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.

Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish

Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday

Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.

Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -

"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"


Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.

Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."

"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"

Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.

"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "

https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/hungary_-stupid-wars_west-russia-ukraine_peace_david-betz_interview/

Ukraine was invaded, with the intention of taking over the entire country, killing or imprisoning the leaders of society and destroying Ukrainian culture - to turn the place into a Russian province.

The Ukrainians faced an existential threat.

Since then, they have not been offered, by Russia, anything other than complete surrender.

So "encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians" is demonstrably bullshit.

I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."

Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.

I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.

I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.

They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.

*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.

Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.

However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.

FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.

I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.

One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.

From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.

Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now.
Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.

Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia

I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.

Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish

Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday

Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.

Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -

"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"


Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.

Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."

"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"

Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.

"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "

https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/hungary_-stupid-wars_west-russia-ukraine_peace_david-betz_interview/

What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.

This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.

The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.

This leads us to Hungary. Last night
@PM_ViktorOrban
symbolically stood against the EU26 on Ukraine. Yet he could prove *a lot* more disruptive - blocking more aid to Ukraine, complicating the EU's ability to seize Russia's frozen assets or maintain EU sanctions against Russia

Senior officials are clear this can't go on indefinitely. After all, are all of the EU's other leaders really going to let Orban jeopardise the Union's ability to fundamentally protect itself and its citizens when the stakes are this high? The answer is: surely not

So a whole host of ideas are being talked about... including, wait for it, kicking the Hungarians out! Sceptics will argue there is currently no legal mechanism to do this. That's true. But in times of existential crisis, treaty considerations have a history of melting away

The EU's no bailout clause didn't prevent it from funnelling €100's of billions to Greece to keep it afloat between 2009-2013. The EU's lack of competence in health did not prevent
@EU_Commission
from developing, manufacturing & deploying billions of COVID-19 vaccine doses

The only thing that matters is the will of the majority. That will is now focussed on deterring Russian aggression. That starts in Ukraine. The appetite to over-engineer solutions to constantly get around Orban's vetoes is rapidly diminishing. He'd be wise to tread carefully

https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/1897915788385742886

FPT

...

...

In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace

I wonder if they even exist any more

On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery

There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.

Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.

They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.

They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.

They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.

They are likely to be less well represented.

They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.

I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.

These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.

And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.

I am appalled by this.

We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.

This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.

'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.

But wait, racist anti-white sentencing laws make him a bit "twitchy", so that's OK

It's just integrity leaving the body.

That's a brilliant analogy

I believe these pre-death rhapsodies often occur in lawyers entering late middle age, pre-retirement, when it just seems so much easier to - you know - go with the flow, don't make a fuss....

DavidL is one of the finest posters on this site.

Was

I hope he returns to his senses. His posts today have been shameful

@DavidL is always very sensible.

Boringly so. I am genuinely surprised my comments have been thought controversial. I have explained that there are many reasons why people from ethnic backgrounds may be more prone to being sentenced to jail than the stereotype of racist judges ( in which respect I agree with @Leon’s observations).

The question is whether the court should respond to these factors or simply say that is the way it is. I think exploring other options than jail makes sense. It reduces the likelihood of further offending. It improves the chances of the offender becoming a useful citizen. That is in all our interests, not just the accused.

For the record I have no intention ever of applying to become a judge. I much prefer prosecution and probably wouldn’t be considered anyway. The guidelines we have been discussing do not apply in Scotland. If they did I would inevitably have been more circumspect in expressing any view about them.

Please don't row back from your excellent and informative posts regarding sentencing reporting from yesterday.

Your points concur with those of high profile
legal experts including Joshua Rosenberg.

I value your opinion far more than I do that of Lucky, or dog whistlers like Leon and Jenrick.

It’s a view.

Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent today in NYC: “Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American Dream”
https://x.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1897697918456332478

How's that eggy pricey thing doing for y'all?

Funny that , it was all the rage last November. You’ll find the Maga cult aren’t bothered about the price of eggs now. The latest coping strategy is to say any pain will be worth it in the end .

That's the Russian line too.

In which case, both will fail.

If Putin sent ethnic Russians from Moscow or St. Petersburg in any numbers to Ukraine, as opposed to Buryats, Chechens, Dagestanis etc, then he'd be dead in a week. The North Korean cannon fodder is already dead. The pain for Russians is limited to the gradual economic crack up- and even this carries high risks for the Kremlin.

That's kind of the point of Fascism- the herrenvolk should inflict suffering and not suffer themselves. Sooner or later, however, reality intervenes.