People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
Unfortunately (for the UK), when it came to the talks, the Chinese government informed Mrs Thatcher that (a) they would not be releasing the New Territories, and (b) that the existing water supply arrangement would not be renewed. So, would the UK like to discuss the peaceful handover of Hong Kong?
There is no Hong Kong without a supply of fresh water, so the UK didn't have a whole bunch of choice.
Absolutely, there was no way.
Wonder what the Spaniards would ever be tempted to do the same with Gibraltar?
If wikipedia is to be believed, Gibraltar's water supply is fully self-contained and 90% of it is from desalinization plants.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
The problem the Chinese have always had with Taiwan is their own propaganda. Most Chinese think that the Taiwanese are desperate for reunification and are only held back by their mendacious leaders. (I have heard this from intelligent Chinese business leaders, who really should know better.)
This makes any kind of bloody conflict a little difficult, because the Taiwanese aren't supposed to be fighting, they're supposed to be throwing flowers.
Xi would need to strangle Taiwan via a blockade. Which is possible, but far from easy.
You then need to struggle with thr form thr blockade takes what with TSMC producing something like 50% of thr World's computer chips. The chips which China assembles into finished products.
Otbwpuld jave to be the threat of a bloclade rather than am actusl blockade as an actual blockade crashes China.
Time to blow the crumbs from that keyboard, just sayin.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
Unfortunately (for the UK), when it came to the talks, the Chinese government informed Mrs Thatcher that (a) they would not be releasing the New Territories, and (b) that the existing water supply arrangement would not be renewed. So, would the UK like to discuss the peaceful handover of Hong Kong?
There is no Hong Kong without a supply of fresh water, so the UK didn't have a whole bunch of choice.
Absolutely, there was no way.
Wonder what the Spaniards would ever be tempted to do the same with Gibraltar?
The Moroccans could do the same with Ceuta and Melilla.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
Unfortunately (for the UK), when it came to the talks, the Chinese government informed Mrs Thatcher that (a) they would not be releasing the New Territories, and (b) that the existing water supply arrangement would not be renewed. So, would the UK like to discuss the peaceful handover of Hong Kong?
There is no Hong Kong without a supply of fresh water, so the UK didn't have a whole bunch of choice.
Absolutely, there was no way.
Wonder what the Spaniards would ever be tempted to do the same with Gibraltar?
If wikipedia is to be believed, Gibraltar's water supply is fully self-contained and 90% of it is from desalinization plants.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
I'd think an awful lot of historic treaties are of that kind. There's a reason people would try to break them as soon as they felt able to get away with it.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
The problem the Chinese have always had with Taiwan is their own propaganda. Most Chinese think that the Taiwanese are desperate for reunification and are only held back by their mendacious leaders. (I have heard this from intelligent Chinese business leaders, who really should know better.)
This makes any kind of bloody conflict a little difficult, because the Taiwanese aren't supposed to be fighting, they're supposed to be throwing flowers.
Xi would need to strangle Taiwan via a blockade. Which is possible, but far from easy.
You then need to struggle with thr form thr blockade takes what with TSMC producing something like 50% of thr World's computer chips. The chips which China assembles into finished products.
Otbwpuld jave to be the threat of a bloclade rather than am actusl blockade as an actual blockade crashes China.
Time to blow the crumbs from that keyboard, just sayin.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
The problem the Chinese have always had with Taiwan is their own propaganda. Most Chinese think that the Taiwanese are desperate for reunification and are only held back by their mendacious leaders. (I have heard this from intelligent Chinese business leaders, who really should know better.)
This makes any kind of bloody conflict a little difficult, because the Taiwanese aren't supposed to be fighting, they're supposed to be throwing flowers.
Xi would need to strangle Taiwan via a blockade. Which is possible, but far from easy.
And while they probably don't on that issue, apparently sometimes the PRC believes its own propaganda, as was reported to be the case when Beijing was surprised by the HK parish elections. The pandemic really helped them get a grip a correct that error of judgment though.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Hunter Biden? Only Trumpite lunatics give a fuck about Hunter Biden.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
We should also seize all Russian owned UK assets.
Nobody would weep if the UK government took control of Chelsea FC, sold off all the players and ground and closed Chelsea FC down.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Correct, but without the New Territories the rest of the Colony (Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula) were totally untenable (for example, re: fresh water supply) which indeed was one reason why the UK obtained the lease on the New Territories in the first place.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Hunter Biden? Only Trumpite lunatics give a fuck about Hunter Biden.
Well put your mortgage money on all the claims against Hunter Biden being false.
Word of warning - he's already admitted to some of the allegations previously dismissed and it's well documented he's been paid a lot of money by Chinese companies for his services.
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
Unfortunately (for the UK), when it came to the talks, the Chinese government informed Mrs Thatcher that (a) they would not be releasing the New Territories, and (b) that the existing water supply arrangement would not be renewed. So, would the UK like to discuss the peaceful handover of Hong Kong?
There is no Hong Kong without a supply of fresh water, so the UK didn't have a whole bunch of choice.
Absolutely, there was no way.
Wonder what the Spaniards would ever be tempted to do the same with Gibraltar?
If wikipedia is to be believed, Gibraltar's water supply is fully self-contained and 90% of it is from desalinization plants.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Hunter Biden? Only Trumpite lunatics give a fuck about Hunter Biden.
Well put your mortgage money on all the claims against Hunter Biden being false.
Word of warning - he's already admitted to some of the allegations previously dismissed and it's well documented he's been paid a lot of money by Chinese companies for his services.
But put your blinkers on and put your money on.
You and your conspiracy theories. God knows why anyone on this site takes you seriously.
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
I read that and thought comparing the roles was both ridiculous and pointless in very different systems (the lack of executive authority is a bit of a giveaway), but thought the incredulity of someone closer to the ground could be incoming.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
We should also seize all Russian owned UK assets.
Nobody would weep if the UK government took control of Chelsea FC, sold off all the players and ground and closed Chelsea FC down.
Wouldn't that bankrupt the Tory party?
I assume it would mean nationalising the Tory party. ;-)
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
True but Finland, for that reason, doesn't give the same f**k you message to the West.
As RCS said, knocking Russia out of SWIFT would be a huge move. Putin is then forced to back down (and lose power) or roll the dice and roll over into the Balts. NATO then either has to (1) back down or (2) go on a path to nuclear war because there is no way conventional forces would be able to retake the Balts without a massive struggle.
Without getting all Trump-y, he had his uses and being unpredictable was a key one. Biden is all too predictable and that is where the danger is.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
I don't think Kazakhstan and Taiwan are remotely comparable. The former is a client state in chaos which has requested aid - an unpleasant, corrupt oligarchy, certainly, but it would be peculiar if it was denied - it's not as though there was a credible opposition. The latter is a fiercely defensive, well-armed country which has absolutely no need or wish for intervention. Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion.
I've also never thought Putin had any real interest in taking over Ukraine, though I agree there's more evidence that he might. He'd like to destabilise and unnerve it and get some Western concessions - could be wrong, but I doubt if it's more than that.
They’re not comparable situations, the link is that they both illustrate western weakness and decline
Would we really go to war with Xi to stop him taking Taiwan? I doubt it. No more than we would go to war with Putin over Ukraine
As for “Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion” that’s remarkably naive. The Taiwanese certainly don’t agree with you
Taiwan and Ukraine both regularly say they feel they might be invaded at any moment - indeed, Taiwan has been saying it for the last 70 years, with increasingly less credibility. Saying it attracts reassurances and aid from allies and boosts domestic popularity as people rally round the flag: there is no real downside except the "cry wolf" issue. The Baltic States used to do the same until they joined NATO. The only worrying difference recently is that Putin has actually moved troops close to Ukraine in a manner that makes it credible, and has a record of actually doing some invading. It's still pretty unlikely IMO.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
If you were a British prime minister, would you send our young men and women to go and fight and die for.... Estonia, against Putin, in a battle we would likely lose?
I'm really not sure we would do that. In fact I wonder just where our red line is. Which country is our "Poland". It might, ironically, be Poland. We have emotional ties to them and 1m Poles live in the UK
Bulgaria and Romania, I'm not so sure. Western Europe definitely yes. Even France, damn them
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
Of course it's the second.
And what would you suggest "the West" does? The government of Kazakhstan asked for help for help from the Russians. And they gave it.
Now, it's a brutal repressionary regime in Kazakhstan, that you would not wish to be a citizen of. It's also a Russian client state (like most of the other poor countries on Russia's southern border). But ultimately, there's nothing the West can do about it.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Hunter Biden? Only Trumpite lunatics give a fuck about Hunter Biden.
Well put your mortgage money on all the claims against Hunter Biden being false.
Word of warning - he's already admitted to some of the allegations previously dismissed and it's well documented he's been paid a lot of money by Chinese companies for his services.
But put your blinkers on and put your money on.
You and your conspiracy theories. God knows why anyone on this site takes you seriously.
I know, you tell them Tres. But they are probably swooning at your latest show of wit and repartee so they are probably too overcome to respond.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
Of course it's the second.
And what would you suggest "the West" does? The government of Kazakhstan asked for help for help from the Russians. And they gave it.
Now, it's a brutal repressionary regime in Kazakhstan, that you would not wish to be a citizen of. It's also a Russian client state (like most of the other poor countries on Russia's southern border). But ultimately, there's nothing the West can do about it.
But it’s all about Joe Biden…
Well, he is the US President. If it was Trumpy in charge, would you be similarly absolving him of any blame?
Holland has just reported 24,575 cases. The biggest case-load of any day in the entire pandemic, for them
They are in the 17th day of a Total Hard Lockdown
AIUI they went into lockdown on December 19th, their case rate bottomed out on December 28th, and it's been climbing continuously since.
December 28th is approximately when Omicron became the dominant variant in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch sequencing effort.
The Dutch lockdown has done two things. It's bought them about three weeks to speed through more vaccinations - at the cost not only of wrecking Christmas but shutting down their whole society, of course. And it's demonstrated to the rest of us that not even lockdowns beat Omicron, which means that we can (hopefully) cast lockdowns into a thousand-foot mineshaft and backfill it with quick-setting concrete.
Even if the Dutch people aren't grateful for their government's failed experiment, we should be.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
I don't think Kazakhstan and Taiwan are remotely comparable. The former is a client state in chaos which has requested aid - an unpleasant, corrupt oligarchy, certainly, but it would be peculiar if it was denied - it's not as though there was a credible opposition. The latter is a fiercely defensive, well-armed country which has absolutely no need or wish for intervention. Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion.
I've also never thought Putin had any real interest in taking over Ukraine, though I agree there's more evidence that he might. He'd like to destabilise and unnerve it and get some Western concessions - could be wrong, but I doubt if it's more than that.
They’re not comparable situations, the link is that they both illustrate western weakness and decline
Would we really go to war with Xi to stop him taking Taiwan? I doubt it. No more than we would go to war with Putin over Ukraine
As for “Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion” that’s remarkably naive. The Taiwanese certainly don’t agree with you
Taiwan and Ukraine both regularly say they feel they might be invaded at any moment - indeed, Taiwan has been saying it for the last 70 years, with increasingly less credibility. Saying it attracts reassurances and aid from allies and boosts domestic popularity as people rally round the flag: there is no real downside except the "cry wolf" issue. The Baltic States used to do the same until they joined NATO. The only worrying difference recently is that Putin has actually moved troops close to Ukraine in a manner that makes it credible, and has a record of actually doing some invading. It's still pretty unlikely IMO.
No, you're wrong. The threat against Taiwan is real, credible, and growing
As for Ukraine not being menaced, it has clearly escaped your attention that Putin seized an entire chunk of the Ukraine a few years ago. The Crimea. It's a bit odd to accuse them of "crying wolf" when a wolf bit their arm off in 2014
Politico.com - Nick Kristof booted off Oregon ballot [for Governor] The former New York Times columnist does not meet the three-year residency requirement, the secretary of state said Thursday.
Former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is ineligible to run for governor of Oregon because he does not meet a residency requirement, the state's top elections official said on Thursday.
“I stand by the determination of the experts in the Oregon Elections Division that Mr. Kristof does not currently meet the constitutional requirements to run or serve as Oregon governor,” state Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, said in a statement. “In this instance, the candidate clearly does not meet the constitutional requirement to run or serve as governor of Oregon."
Kristof can appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Kristof told POLITICO that the campaign was "preparing to go to court" and would hold a press conference later Thursday afternoon.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist announced last year that he was running in Democratic primary to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. He left his post at The New York Times in mid-October, before officially launching his bid two weeks later.
Even before he formally launched his campaign, Kristof was trying to push aside challenges to his residency. Attorneys representing Kristof argued last year that he has kept a residence in the state and “considered Oregon to be his home at all times,” despite the fact that he voted in New York in 2020 and has spent a considerable amount of time outside the state. His campaign submitted an extensive argument to state election officials earlier this week echoing that.
The state constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have been a "resident within this state" for three years prior the election.
The field to replace Brown is crowded, even with Kristof’s apparent disqualification. Tina Kotek, the speaker of the state House, and state Treasurer Tobias Read are likely the two biggest names in a packed Democratic primary. Republicans also have a busy field, which includes former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan and 2016 nominee Bud Pierce. Democrats have won every election for Oregon governor since 1986.
Kristof had been far outpacing his opponents in fundraising. Late last year, he said he raised over $2.5 million for his campaign. The filing deadline for the May 17 primary is March 8.
Politico.com - Nick Kristof booted off Oregon ballot [for Governor] The former New York Times columnist does not meet the three-year residency requirement, the secretary of state said Thursday.
Former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is ineligible to run for governor of Oregon because he does not meet a residency requirement, the state's top elections official said on Thursday.
“I stand by the determination of the experts in the Oregon Elections Division that Mr. Kristof does not currently meet the constitutional requirements to run or serve as Oregon governor,” state Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, said in a statement. “In this instance, the candidate clearly does not meet the constitutional requirement to run or serve as governor of Oregon."
Kristof can appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Kristof told POLITICO that the campaign was "preparing to go to court" and would hold a press conference later Thursday afternoon.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist announced last year that he was running in Democratic primary to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. He left his post at The New York Times in mid-October, before officially launching his bid two weeks later.
Even before he formally launched his campaign, Kristof was trying to push aside challenges to his residency. Attorneys representing Kristof argued last year that he has kept a residence in the state and “considered Oregon to be his home at all times,” despite the fact that he voted in New York in 2020 and has spent a considerable amount of time outside the state. His campaign submitted an extensive argument to state election officials earlier this week echoing that.
The state constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have been a "resident within this state" for three years prior the election.
The field to replace Brown is crowded, even with Kristof’s apparent disqualification. Tina Kotek, the speaker of the state House, and state Treasurer Tobias Read are likely the two biggest names in a packed Democratic primary. Republicans also have a busy field, which includes former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan and 2016 nominee Bud Pierce. Democrats have won every election for Oregon governor since 1986.
Kristof had been far outpacing his opponents in fundraising. Late last year, he said he raised over $2.5 million for his campaign. The filing deadline for the May 17 primary is March 8.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
We should also seize all Russian owned UK assets.
Nobody would weep if the UK government took control of Chelsea FC, sold off all the players and ground and closed Chelsea FC down.
Wouldn't that bankrupt the Tory party?
The Russians have given the Tories so much cash I'm surprised they have anything left. It's either the Etonians or the Estonians - nobody can afford to own them both.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind thatbdoing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Xi is said to see retaking Taiwan as his final goal. Finally erasing China’s century of shame. The achievement which will put him in the pantheon. That’s pretty ominous because he is not young
I wonder if China might choose to strangle Taiwan into submission. Refuse to trade with countries that feed Taiwan. Try and shut down the internet. Same way the USSR tried to strangle West Berlin
They took Hong Kong without a bullet being fired…
Almost like Hong Kong was on lease to UK and the UK had to give it back to China after 99 years.
Not true? The New Territories were the leased bit. Think we ‘owned’ Hongers
Hong Kong wasn't sustainable without the New Territories, and Maggie had the good sense to recognise both this and the fact that Britain couldn't credibly defend a tiny scrap of land bordering China from the Chinese army.
That may be true but I think Leon was talking about TSE's claim that HK was leased. Some of it was, but the original part was the UK's.
The New Territories were leased, but Hong Kong Island was not.
However... as we captured Hong Kong during the first Opium War, and ceded to the UK at the Treaty of Nanking, the Chinese never really - shall we say... - let it go. They regard it as something of theirs they were forced at gunpoint to give up.
Unfortunately (for the UK), when it came to the talks, the Chinese government informed Mrs Thatcher that (a) they would not be releasing the New Territories, and (b) that the existing water supply arrangement would not be renewed. So, would the UK like to discuss the peaceful handover of Hong Kong?
There is no Hong Kong without a supply of fresh water, so the UK didn't have a whole bunch of choice.
Absolutely, there was no way.
Wonder what the Spaniards would ever be tempted to do the same with Gibraltar?
Nah. The UK would nuke them or so we are told on PB. Wouldn't leave many rock apes, though.
The new ultra-long snorkel tanks would be on their way across the Bay of Biscay.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Hunter Biden? Only Trumpite lunatics give a fuck about Hunter Biden.
Well put your mortgage money on all the claims against Hunter Biden being false.
Word of warning - he's already admitted to some of the allegations previously dismissed and it's well documented he's been paid a lot of money by Chinese companies for his services.
But put your blinkers on and put your money on.
You and your conspiracy theories. God knows why anyone on this site takes you seriously.
PS you want to stop paying your licence money - even the BBC is covering these conspiracy theories.
Holland has just reported 24,575 cases. The biggest case-load of any day in the entire pandemic, for them
They are in the 17th day of a Total Hard Lockdown
AIUI they went into lockdown on December 19th, their case rate bottomed out on December 28th, and it's been climbing continuously since.
December 28th is approximately when Omicron became the dominant variant in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch sequencing effort.
The Dutch lockdown has done two things. It's bought them about three weeks to speed through more vaccinations - at the cost not only of wrecking Christmas but shutting down their whole society, of course. And it's demonstrated to the rest of us that not even lockdowns beat Omicron, which means that we can (hopefully) cast lockdowns into a thousand-foot mineshaft and backfill it with quick-setting concrete.
Even if the Dutch people aren't grateful for their government's failed experiment, we should be.
The videos of the Dutch police beating up anti-lockdown protestors and setting dogs on them are pretty horrific
A different side to the sensible Lowlanders that we've never seen before
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
I don't think Kazakhstan and Taiwan are remotely comparable. The former is a client state in chaos which has requested aid - an unpleasant, corrupt oligarchy, certainly, but it would be peculiar if it was denied - it's not as though there was a credible opposition. The latter is a fiercely defensive, well-armed country which has absolutely no need or wish for intervention. Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion.
I've also never thought Putin had any real interest in taking over Ukraine, though I agree there's more evidence that he might. He'd like to destabilise and unnerve it and get some Western concessions - could be wrong, but I doubt if it's more than that.
They’re not comparable situations, the link is that they both illustrate western weakness and decline
Would we really go to war with Xi to stop him taking Taiwan? I doubt it. No more than we would go to war with Putin over Ukraine
As for “Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion” that’s remarkably naive. The Taiwanese certainly don’t agree with you
Taiwan and Ukraine both regularly say they feel they might be invaded at any moment - indeed, Taiwan has been saying it for the last 70 years, with increasingly less credibility. Saying it attracts reassurances and aid from allies and boosts domestic popularity as people rally round the flag: there is no real downside except the "cry wolf" issue. The Baltic States used to do the same until they joined NATO. The only worrying difference recently is that Putin has actually moved troops close to Ukraine in a manner that makes it credible, and has a record of actually doing some invading. It's still pretty unlikely IMO.
No, you're wrong. The threat against Taiwan is real, credible, and growing
As for Ukraine not being menaced, it has clearly escaped your attention that Putin seized an entire chunk of the Ukraine a few years ago. The Crimea. It's a bit odd to accuse them of "crying wolf" when a wolf bit their arm off in 2014
This is a frankly bizarre comment, all in all
"Crying wolf" is in reference to Taiwan, not Ukraine.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Politico.com - Nick Kristof booted off Oregon ballot [for Governor] The former New York Times columnist does not meet the three-year residency requirement, the secretary of state said Thursday.
Former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is ineligible to run for governor of Oregon because he does not meet a residency requirement, the state's top elections official said on Thursday.
“I stand by the determination of the experts in the Oregon Elections Division that Mr. Kristof does not currently meet the constitutional requirements to run or serve as Oregon governor,” state Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, said in a statement. “In this instance, the candidate clearly does not meet the constitutional requirement to run or serve as governor of Oregon."
Kristof can appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Kristof told POLITICO that the campaign was "preparing to go to court" and would hold a press conference later Thursday afternoon.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist announced last year that he was running in Democratic primary to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. He left his post at The New York Times in mid-October, before officially launching his bid two weeks later.
Even before he formally launched his campaign, Kristof was trying to push aside challenges to his residency. Attorneys representing Kristof argued last year that he has kept a residence in the state and “considered Oregon to be his home at all times,” despite the fact that he voted in New York in 2020 and has spent a considerable amount of time outside the state. His campaign submitted an extensive argument to state election officials earlier this week echoing that.
The state constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have been a "resident within this state" for three years prior the election.
The field to replace Brown is crowded, even with Kristof’s apparent disqualification. Tina Kotek, the speaker of the state House, and state Treasurer Tobias Read are likely the two biggest names in a packed Democratic primary. Republicans also have a busy field, which includes former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan and 2016 nominee Bud Pierce. Democrats have won every election for Oregon governor since 1986.
Kristof had been far outpacing his opponents in fundraising. Late last year, he said he raised over $2.5 million for his campaign. The filing deadline for the May 17 primary is March 8.
Sounds rather sloppy of Kristof not to have secured his residency properly beforehand. Would you want a governor who shows such a lack of planning ahead?
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
If you were a British prime minister, would you send our young men and women to go and fight and die for.... Estonia, against Putin, in a battle we would likely lose?
I'm really not sure we would do that. In fact I wonder just where our red line is. Which country is our "Poland". It might, ironically, be Poland. We have emotional ties to them and 1m Poles live in the UK
Bulgaria and Romania, I'm not so sure. Western Europe definitely yes. Even France, damn them
Losing any member state to a Russian invasion would surely be a fatal blow to the EU in a way that Brexit was clearly not.
(So I expect there are a number of Tory ERG members cheering Russia on.)
I suspect retribution from the West would be Swift.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
I don't think Kazakhstan and Taiwan are remotely comparable. The former is a client state in chaos which has requested aid - an unpleasant, corrupt oligarchy, certainly, but it would be peculiar if it was denied - it's not as though there was a credible opposition. The latter is a fiercely defensive, well-armed country which has absolutely no need or wish for intervention. Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion.
I've also never thought Putin had any real interest in taking over Ukraine, though I agree there's more evidence that he might. He'd like to destabilise and unnerve it and get some Western concessions - could be wrong, but I doubt if it's more than that.
They’re not comparable situations, the link is that they both illustrate western weakness and decline
Would we really go to war with Xi to stop him taking Taiwan? I doubt it. No more than we would go to war with Putin over Ukraine
As for “Xi shows no real sign of remotely contemplating invasion” that’s remarkably naive. The Taiwanese certainly don’t agree with you
Taiwan and Ukraine both regularly say they feel they might be invaded at any moment - indeed, Taiwan has been saying it for the last 70 years, with increasingly less credibility. Saying it attracts reassurances and aid from allies and boosts domestic popularity as people rally round the flag: there is no real downside except the "cry wolf" issue. The Baltic States used to do the same until they joined NATO. The only worrying difference recently is that Putin has actually moved troops close to Ukraine in a manner that makes it credible, and has a record of actually doing some invading. It's still pretty unlikely IMO.
No, you're wrong. The threat against Taiwan is real, credible, and growing
As for Ukraine not being menaced, it has clearly escaped your attention that Putin seized an entire chunk of the Ukraine a few years ago. The Crimea. It's a bit odd to accuse them of "crying wolf" when a wolf bit their arm off in 2014
This is a frankly bizarre comment, all in all
"Crying wolf" is in reference to Taiwan, not Ukraine.
That is absolutely not clear from Nick's comment, and it is bollocks anyway
Every expert thinks China is intent of retaking the island. The only question is: how and when
"“Unifying Taiwan by force” as a Chinese policy has existed since Chairman Mao Zedong coined the term. Though the onset of the Korean War spared Taiwan such a fate at that time, China’s unfulfilled aspirations continue to haunt the Communist Party. In recent years, Xi has tied the annexation of Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland amid civil war in 1949, to his “China dream” for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” In the eyes of Communist Party elites, unifying Taiwan is the final piece in making China great again."
A few years ago we would have scoffed at the idea that Beijing might seize Hong Kong and crush its democracy. As we would have scoffed at the idea it might commit quasi-genocide on the Uighurs.
Deliberately trashed by the government without compensation. An absolute scandal.
I think that’s a little unfair. We’ve called on the government to move towards living with Covid. Awful timing for omicron for sure, but was a better option really locking down plus furlough? Some funding has been made available. These are tough times, but to call it a deliberate act is too strong.
Jenny Harries saying you shouldn’t go to parties unless you absolutely have to, on the Monday morning of the week of the first tranche of Christmas parties. Various bods from the government actively discouraging works parties. Just wiped out thousands of bookings worth multiple millions in a sector that has already been hit.
If it wasn’t deliberate, it was an act of gross stupidity - I don’t know which is worse.
Mervyn King going on the radio to say house prices are too high and he wouldn’t buy one himself… the day after I put my house on the market…
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
The BBC have been plugging The Apprentice the last few days. They even had the winner of Series 1 on BBC London News this evening (I hear he is one of Sugar's helpers this series).
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
Boris Johnson has been accused of corruption after it emerged that he sought funds for his flat refurbishment from a Conservative donor while promising to consider plans for a mystery “great exhibition”.
The prime minister is facing fresh questions after newly published WhatsApp messages with the Tory peer David Brownlow show Johnson called parts of his Downing Street residence a “tip” and asked for “approvals” so his decor designer, Lulu Lytle, could “get on with it” in November 2020.
He signed off the message by saying: “Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.” Lord Brownlow replied: “Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP! Thanks for thinking about GE2.”
On Thursday, Johnson was forced to make a “humble and sincere” apology for the texts not being given to his independent ethics adviser during an initial inquiry last spring.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Taiwan's got a pretty decent air force - and I'd rate the latest V block F16s as at least as good as the J-20. A total of 250 fourth gen fighters with the latest US missiles, fighting over their home territory, (backed by a lot of air-to-ground missiles) is a pretty strong deterrent.
Politico.com - Nick Kristof booted off Oregon ballot [for Governor] The former New York Times columnist does not meet the three-year residency requirement, the secretary of state said Thursday.
Former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is ineligible to run for governor of Oregon because he does not meet a residency requirement, the state's top elections official said on Thursday.
“I stand by the determination of the experts in the Oregon Elections Division that Mr. Kristof does not currently meet the constitutional requirements to run or serve as Oregon governor,” state Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, said in a statement. “In this instance, the candidate clearly does not meet the constitutional requirement to run or serve as governor of Oregon."
Kristof can appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Kristof told POLITICO that the campaign was "preparing to go to court" and would hold a press conference later Thursday afternoon.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist announced last year that he was running in Democratic primary to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. He left his post at The New York Times in mid-October, before officially launching his bid two weeks later.
Even before he formally launched his campaign, Kristof was trying to push aside challenges to his residency. Attorneys representing Kristof argued last year that he has kept a residence in the state and “considered Oregon to be his home at all times,” despite the fact that he voted in New York in 2020 and has spent a considerable amount of time outside the state. His campaign submitted an extensive argument to state election officials earlier this week echoing that.
The state constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have been a "resident within this state" for three years prior the election.
The field to replace Brown is crowded, even with Kristof’s apparent disqualification. Tina Kotek, the speaker of the state House, and state Treasurer Tobias Read are likely the two biggest names in a packed Democratic primary. Republicans also have a busy field, which includes former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan and 2016 nominee Bud Pierce. Democrats have won every election for Oregon governor since 1986.
Kristof had been far outpacing his opponents in fundraising. Late last year, he said he raised over $2.5 million for his campaign. The filing deadline for the May 17 primary is March 8.
Sounds rather sloppy of Kristof not to have secured his residency properly beforehand. Would you want a governor who shows such a lack of planning ahead?
Don't think that there's any way "to have secured" residency prior to investigation & determination by the Secretary of State: not sure if he could have started the process sooner or not, but my guess is not.
Am certain that he obtained advice from pretty high-priced legal eagles, that he DID qualify. Appears (at least on surface) that Kristoff's problem was voting in 2020 in another state, namely New York.
Which was a really stupid thing to do IF he was already at that time thinking of running for Governor of the great Beaver State. And even if he wasn't, why the heck was he NOT registered to vote in Oregon IF he was so committed to his birth state?
As an aside, years ago had a neighbor here in Seattle, who was originally from a small town in eastern WA. Where he retained his legal domicile, in large measure by registering to vote there (where he owned property including a family house) rather than in the Emerald City.
Why he did this, I do not know. But same option was available to Nick Kristoff.
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
Or, as the editors of a former Prime Minister's diaries put it...
"[He] had some strange defect of mind that frequently led him to ask not "What did I do?" but "What is the most impressive explanation of my actions that cannot be disproved by published facts?""
They were based at Hacker College, Oxford. Which ought to exist by now in the "Yes, Minister" timeline. God, I'm old.
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
I like it! From you, I translate "does engender a degree of scepticism" as akin to "even I, Charles, think he's a lying toad".
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Taiwan's got a pretty decent air force - and I'd rate the latest V block F16s as at least as good as the J-20. A total of 250 fourth gen fighters with the latest US missiles, fighting over their home territory, (backed by a lot of air-to-ground missiles) is a pretty strong deterrent.
China will probably just threaten and bully Taiwan into submission. Cf Hong Kong
The BBC have been plugging The Apprentice the last few days. They even had the winner of Series 1 on BBC London News this evening (I hear he is one of Sugar's helpers this series).
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
The problem with most of these kind of programmes is even if they start of vaguely sensible they soon head to the lowest common denominator, get increasing bigger knobheads, cause drama.
And its self fullfilling when they go down this path nobody serious will apply. Who wants to spend several months having to live and have to work with total bellends if you are serious about business.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Taiwan's got a pretty decent air force - and I'd rate the latest V block F16s as at least as good as the J-20. A total of 250 fourth gen fighters with the latest US missiles, fighting over their home territory, (backed by a lot of air-to-ground missiles) is a pretty strong deterrent.
Indeed but the key determinant is the willingness of the attacker to absorb losses and that is what this comes down to - there is no way Taiwan could defeat China on its own so it needs to inflict as many losses as it can to make it politically unacceptable. However, if China does not give a f**k - and losing a couple of hundred fighter pilots has less risk of mass unrest than tens of thousands of soldiers - then Taiwan will eventually lose unless it receives outside support, Stalin didn't give a damn about his losses for Berlin in 1945 (or at any other point), Xi I suspect has similar thoughts.
One other point to be fearful. China is becoming increasingly insular and cracking down on its companies, as well documented. That could be to rein the power of the billionaires but another argument is that Xi is laying the grounding for neutering any possible challenge to his rein if he does attack Taiwan.
The BBC have been plugging The Apprentice the last few days. They even had the winner of Series 1 on BBC London News this evening (I hear he is one of Sugar's helpers this series).
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
For reasons I don't quite understand, it's been a blatant spoof/pastiche/send-up of itself for the past several years.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
True, although to be fair it was part of the Russian Empire. It depends on how far Putin wants to go back. In any event, I don't think he is interested in Finland, it is already neutered and it would be too problematic. The Balts are a different story
The BBC have been plugging The Apprentice the last few days. They even had the winner of Series 1 on BBC London News this evening (I hear he is one of Sugar's helpers this series).
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
For reasons I don't quite understand, it's been a spoof/pastiche/send-up of itself for the past several years.
Fairly sure I remember that the first series was generally fairly serious and with sensible candidates, and that a Mitchell and Webb did a send up of the decision to have sensible candidates replaced by idiots.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack over a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence material is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
The French really are a nation of eunuchs, though if they do this, we should remove all (Norman) French from the front of our passports.
A four-hundred-year-old body tasked with protecting the French language has threatened to sue the government unless it removes English words like “surname” from the country's new biometric identity cards.
L'Académie française argued the English “invasion” was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
This is reportedly the first time in almost four centuries that the Académie - official authority on the French language since 1635 - has challenged the government in this way.
French citizens possess both passports and ID cards, the latter of which was amended last year to include both French and English translations of all the fields, such as “name”, “address” and “nationality”. French passports already had fields in English.
Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, "perpetual secretary" of the Académie whose 40 members are called “immortals” as membership is for life, told Le Figaro it was an outrage to “place English on a par with French” on the ID cards, which French nationals are obliged to carry in case of police checks.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Taiwan's got a pretty decent air force - and I'd rate the latest V block F16s as at least as good as the J-20. A total of 250 fourth gen fighters with the latest US missiles, fighting over their home territory, (backed by a lot of air-to-ground missiles) is a pretty strong deterrent.
China will probably just threaten and bully Taiwan into submission. Cf Hong Kong
I don't see how China can invade Taiwan - it's a monumental ask, against a heavily armed (with the latest Western weapons) state across quite a lot of ocean. I mean, they clearly *could*, but Xi wants a sure victory, not to enter into what could be a very expensive war. (Plus, of course, the Chinese economy is surprisingly dependent on Taiwanese exports.)
Threats and bullying?
On their own, that's probably insufficient.
They would need to make Taiwan's life very difficult, because otherwise all Taiwan does is buy more military hardware.
I think a growing blockade is the only thing that works. It's bloodshed free. But it slowly makes it hard for Taiwan to sell its exports or import food.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack of a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence mateiral is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the, 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
The BBC have been plugging The Apprentice the last few days. They even had the winner of Series 1 on BBC London News this evening (I hear he is one of Sugar's helpers this series).
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
For reasons I don't quite understand, it's been a spoof/pastiche/send-up of itself for the past several years.
So much television seems to do that.
Mrs P. likes Digging for Britain and I half watch it with her... but half the programme now seems to be watching Dr Alice Roberts do a catwalk across a field whilst pouting to camera.
See also Nigella Lawson's cookery progs which when they started were actually about, you know, cooking rather than La Nigella.
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
It's going to rumble on isn't it.
Three ways it stops;
1 Boris stops himself. Either he moderates his behaviour, or retires from No 10, all the better to cadge fivers.
2 He's stopped by (roughly) law. Some regulator unambiguously rules that he's been a bad boy and has the power to punish him.
3 He's stopped by (roughly) politics. Either Conservative MPs, or the electorate.
Put it like that, those who have gloated about BoJo's Teflon qualities for ever and ever may have a point.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack of a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence mateiral is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the, 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
7th Fleet says"Hi!"
I'm even allowing the idea that no-one intervenes and the 7th fleet has decided to fuck off to Hawaii for drinks and snacks.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
We should also seize all Russian owned UK assets.
Nobody would weep if the UK government took control of Chelsea FC, sold off all the players and ground and closed Chelsea FC down.
The French really are a nation of eunuchs, though if they do this, we should remove all (Norman) French from the front of our passports.
A four-hundred-year-old body tasked with protecting the French language has threatened to sue the government unless it removes English words like “surname” from the country's new biometric identity cards.
L'Académie française argued the English “invasion” was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
This is reportedly the first time in almost four centuries that the Académie - official authority on the French language since 1635 - has challenged the government in this way.
French citizens possess both passports and ID cards, the latter of which was amended last year to include both French and English translations of all the fields, such as “name”, “address” and “nationality”. French passports already had fields in English.
Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, "perpetual secretary" of the Académie whose 40 members are called “immortals” as membership is for life, told Le Figaro it was an outrage to “place English on a par with French” on the ID cards, which French nationals are obliged to carry in case of police checks.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack of a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence mateiral is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the, 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
As I said, the key is the enemy's / unwillingness ability to absorb losses. Unless you are seriously making the argument Taiwan can defeat China, China will eventually win. The question is how far it goes.
Also, you are assuming a straightforward obliteration of the air defences with simultaneous landings happening. It probably wouldn't work like that. If you had control of the air, your better bet would be to diminish the remaining resources. As happened with the Germans in Normandy in 1944, your ground units get obliterated even if they are mobile if the other side has air control. We also do not know how much cyber attacks would impact the defence chain (I'm not going Battlestar Galatica).
As a final point, Taiwan may have very good plans as RCS said but we do not know much about the quality of their pilots. Dura probably knows more.
"29 November 2020, 12.59pm Hi David I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals ? Many thanks and all best Boris "
...with the idea that Boris claims not to have known that Brownlow was funding renovations to the No 11 residence?
He claims he thought that Brownlow was managing the fund not funding it himself
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
It's going to rumble on isn't it.
Three ways it stops;
1 Boris stops himself. Either he moderates his behaviour, or retires from No 10, all the better to cadge fivers.
2 He's stopped by (roughly) law. Some regulator unambiguously rules that he's been a bad boy and has the power to punish him.
3 He's stopped by (roughly) politics. Either Conservative MPs, or the electorate.
Put it like that, those who have gloated about BoJo's Teflon qualities for ever and ever may have a point.
I think Boris exiting one way or another is the only thing that stops this.
I see no chance of him moderating his behaviour and in any event, plenty of skeletons seem to already been filed away in the cupboards to await their moment in the sun (or The Sun).
St Petersburg, where Putin hails from and which was the launchpad of his political career, is very close to Finland. He surely knows the country well, as do many Russians who have property there as an insurance against arbitrary expropriation by the Russian state. So unlike Estonia, say, there is unlikely to be a pretext for Russian aggression coming from ethnic Russians living in the country. The other route, namely "provocation" is also very unlikely as the Finns know how to tread a delicate path with their unpredictable neighbour, indeed it has been the basis of their foreign policy, sometimes labelled unkindly "Finlandization".
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
True, although to be fair it was part of the Russian Empire. It depends on how far Putin wants to go back. In any event, I don't think he is interested in Finland, it is already neutered and it would be too problematic. The Balts are a different story
Reckon that You-Know-Who would be open giving back Alaska, as a "thank you"?
St Petersburg, where Putin hails from and which was the launchpad of his political career, is very close to Finland. He surely knows the country well, as do many Russians who have property there as an insurance against arbitrary expropriation by the Russian state. So unlike Estonia, say, there is unlikely to be a pretext for Russian aggression coming from ethnic Russians living in the country. The other route, namely "provocation" is also very unlikely as the Finns know how to tread a delicate path with their unpredictable neighbour, indeed it has been the basis of their foreign policy, sometimes labelled unkindly "Finlandization".
In WW2, the Finns deliberately did not attack Leningrad for that same reason. If they had of done so, the city would likely have fallen quite quickly.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack over a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence material is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
Even that attack requires enormous marshalling of resources at air bases in Western China. Resources that China does not currently have.
Worth remembering that a Hercules can carry a stunning... 62 parachutists.
62.
A parachute landing requires a *lot* of planes. And it requires that pretty much all ground defences have been eliminated first. Because otherwise those floating things get lots of holes in them.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
True, although to be fair it was part of the Russian Empire. It depends on how far Putin wants to go back. In any event, I don't think he is interested in Finland, it is already neutered and it would be too problematic. The Balts are a different story
Reckon that You-Know-Who would be open giving back Alaska, as a "thank you"?
Nah, more likely a President Harris to do it to take out 3 Republican votes for the 2024 Presidential election
Deliberately trashed by the government without compensation. An absolute scandal.
I think that’s a little unfair. We’ve called on the government to move towards living with Covid. Awful timing for omicron for sure, but was a better option really locking down plus furlough? Some funding has been made available. These are tough times, but to call it a deliberate act is too strong.
Jenny Harries saying you shouldn’t go to parties unless you absolutely have to, on the Monday morning of the week of the first tranche of Christmas parties. Various bods from the government actively discouraging works parties. Just wiped out thousands of bookings worth multiple millions in a sector that has already been hit.
If it wasn’t deliberate, it was an act of gross stupidity - I don’t know which is worse.
Mervyn King going on the radio to say house prices are too high and he wouldn’t buy one himself… the day after I put my house on the market…
Maybe he’s hoping to buy your house at a bargain rate?
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Taiwan's got a pretty decent air force - and I'd rate the latest V block F16s as at least as good as the J-20. A total of 250 fourth gen fighters with the latest US missiles, fighting over their home territory, (backed by a lot of air-to-ground missiles) is a pretty strong deterrent.
China will probably just threaten and bully Taiwan into submission. Cf Hong Kong
I don't see how China can invade Taiwan - it's a monumental ask, against a heavily armed (with the latest Western weapons) state across quite a lot of ocean. I mean, they clearly *could*, but Xi wants a sure victory, not to enter into what could be a very expensive war. (Plus, of course, the Chinese economy is surprisingly dependent on Taiwanese exports.)
Threats and bullying?
On their own, that's probably insufficient.
They would need to make Taiwan's life very difficult, because otherwise all Taiwan does is buy more military hardware.
I think a growing blockade is the only thing that works. It's bloodshed free. But it slowly makes it hard for Taiwan to sell its exports or import food.
Yes - as I said on here a couple of hours ago, that's the way to go if you're Xi
China has such enormous power as a trading nation: she is the biggest trader in the world. And so many impoverished nations now owe China money. See Sri Lanka as an example
China can say to all these countries: we will stop trading with you, and call in our debts, unless you stop trading with Taiwan. That might easily work. It would then require America to do a sort of Berlin airlift for years - forever? - to keep Taiwan going
And I can see the Taiwanese eventually thinking Oh God fuck this, and yielding to some "Treaty"
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
Of course it's the second.
And what would you suggest "the West" does? The government of Kazakhstan asked for help for help from the Russians. And they gave it.
Now, it's a brutal repressionary regime in Kazakhstan, that you would not wish to be a citizen of. It's also a Russian client state (like most of the other poor countries on Russia's southern border). But ultimately, there's nothing the West can do about it.
But it’s all about Joe Biden…
Well, he is the US President. If it was Trumpy in charge, would you be similarly absolving him of any blame?
In this case, yes. As has been pointed out to you already, Putin was invited in. Have a look at a map, and tell us how the West could possibly have intervened.
St Petersburg, where Putin hails from and which was the launchpad of his political career, is very close to Finland. He surely knows the country well, as do many Russians who have property there as an insurance against arbitrary expropriation by the Russian state. So unlike Estonia, say, there is unlikely to be a pretext for Russian aggression coming from ethnic Russians living in the country. The other route, namely "provocation" is also very unlikely as the Finns know how to tread a delicate path with their unpredictable neighbour, indeed it has been the basis of their foreign policy, sometimes labelled unkindly "Finlandization".
In WW2, the Finns deliberately did not attack Leningrad for that same reason. If they had of done so, the city would likely have fallen quite quickly.
I doubt it. They endured and survived a horrendous prolonged siege from the Germans, obviously a more formidable force than the Finns.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
True, although to be fair it was part of the Russian Empire. It depends on how far Putin wants to go back. In any event, I don't think he is interested in Finland, it is already neutered and it would be too problematic. The Balts are a different story
The thing Putin is interested in above all else is Eastern Ukraine.
I know plenty of Russians. Many of them are in the West, some in Russia.
All of them detest Putin ...
But, all of them -- without exception -- believe that the Eastern Ukraine & the Crimea belong to Russia.
There is little doubt that most Russians would support the recovery of this territory, even if they don't support Putin.
(Lviv and Western Ukraine are a different matter).
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
More significantly, Finland has said they will join NATO if Ukraine is invaded. I suspect NATO would support them if they are invaded, even if they are not members
Looks like World Affairs night tonight on PB, with our resident experts playing out their war games scenarios.
While in a parallel thread others blame well-meaning medics and scientists for a downturn in hospitality takings, which was actually due to the fact that people (the public), in light of rising and slightly scary Covid rates, followed government (i.e. politicians') advice and were cautious before Xmas, when not much was known about Omicron.
St Petersburg, where Putin hails from and which was the launchpad of his political career, is very close to Finland. He surely knows the country well, as do many Russians who have property there as an insurance against arbitrary expropriation by the Russian state. So unlike Estonia, say, there is unlikely to be a pretext for Russian aggression coming from ethnic Russians living in the country. The other route, namely "provocation" is also very unlikely as the Finns know how to tread a delicate path with their unpredictable neighbour, indeed it has been the basis of their foreign policy, sometimes labelled unkindly "Finlandization".
In WW2, the Finns deliberately did not attack Leningrad for that same reason. If they had of done so, the city would likely have fallen quite quickly.
I doubt it. They endured and survived a horrendous prolonged siege from the Germans, obviously a more formidable force than the Finns.
Look at the map. If the Finns had attacked it would have created another front.
People make very weird assumptions about how easy it would be for China to invade Taiwan.
Never mind that doing so would blow up the world economy (via shattering compiter chip supplies) that China is currently entirely dependent on. If ASML ever sell top end machinery to China then otnos a different matter but everything goes boom if China invades Taiwan.
Good point. I assume they want to get Taiwan the long way, via attrition.
Similarly an invasion of Ukraine would presumably bring massive sanctions down on Russia (exclusion from Swift has been mentioned), which would not make life very pleasant in the Kremlin.
Let's say Russia invades and gets kicked out of SWIFT. It then turns off gas supplies to Europe.
And then let's say the US does this, does Putin stick or twist? Withdraw from Ukraine or invade the Baltics (with help from Belarus) and dare the US and its allies to take the ultimate step?
How many US / EU citizens would be prepared to perish for the Balts?
(PS there is a reason why Russia kept relatively quiet when Trump was in office and it wasn't because he was a Russian spy, it's because he was considered nuts enough to possibly go OTT)
As to 'perishing for the Balts'; here we are in unknown territory for reasons. In the whole history of NATO no state has laid a warlike finger on an inch of NATO territory. That is what is involved in at attack on the Baltic states. We don't know, but it has worked so far.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
Last time the Russians went up against Finland, they won, but they got a hell of a bloody nose from the Finns.
Finland is also a bit of a dead end. Ok, you are up next against Sweden but they are not NATO either. You might go for Norway but you already have a border with them.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Finland was never a part of the USSR
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
True, although to be fair it was part of the Russian Empire. It depends on how far Putin wants to go back. In any event, I don't think he is interested in Finland, it is already neutered and it would be too problematic. The Balts are a different story
The thing Putin is interested in above all else is Eastern Ukraine.
I know plenty of Russians. Many of them are in the West, some in Russia.
All of them detest Putin ...
But, all of them -- without exception -- believe that the Eastern Ukraine & the Crimea belong to Russia.
There is little doubt that most Russians would support the recovery of this territory, even if they don't support Putin.
(Lviv and Western Ukraine are a different matter).
NYT ($) - Dog Is Hailed as ‘Real-Life Lassie’ After Leading Police to Truck Crash Two men lay unconscious on a frigid Vermont night until Tinsley, a Shiloh Shepherd, led the authorities back to the site of the wreck.
As Cam Laundry lay unconscious in the snowy woods near his battered pickup after a rollover crash, his dog Tinsley ran off into the icy Vermont night and returned with help.
The authorities and local media are now hailing the 1-year-old Shiloh Shepherd as a “real-life Lassie” for her actions on Monday night.
Rescuers said they would not have spotted Mr. Laundry and his seriously injured passenger if not for Tinsley.
They credited her with preventing a terrible night from becoming a lot worse for Mr. Laundry and his passenger. The Vermont State Police said Mr. Laundry, 31, was intoxicated and cited him with driving under the influence. He says he is cooperating with the investigation.
He spoke with gratitude about Tinsley in a phone interview on Wednesday. “She’s my guardian,” Mr. Laundry said as she played with her squeaky squirrel toy. “The night was very cold. We were in hypothermic conditions when they reached us.”
After the crash around 10 p.m. Monday night, Tinsley crossed into New Hampshire, a mile or so away, and led the authorities back into Vermont to the wreck, which officials said they would not have noticed unless someone had seen the damaged guardrail that the truck had tumbled over.
At first the officers were simply trying to catch Tinsley to get her out of traffic on Interstate 89 after a driver reported a dog running loose. But she kept running north, slowing occasionally to keep the officers close behind, Lt. Dan Baldassarre of the New Hampshire State Police said in a statement. She eventually led them to a bridge over the wreck.
“It’s a real-life Lassie story,” he said, referring to the fictional collie from long-running TV and radio programs who had a penchant for saving humans who got themselves in trouble. “She’s the hero,” Lieutenant Baldassarre said. . . .
Comments
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Word of warning - he's already admitted to some of the allegations previously dismissed and it's well documented he's been paid a lot of money by Chinese companies for his services.
But put your blinkers on and put your money on.
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
Perish the thought but surely the Russians have wondered what happens if they attack the non NATO, democratic European state in the EU with which they have a border, Finland. A more interesting target in all sorts of ways than Estonia etc.
https://www.ft.com/content/28e104d4-bee1-4685-acd1-ff7cd0186ddf
They are in the 17th day of a Total Hard Lockdown
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1479151250667151362?t=_RmnaayhgNAGQ7QqfVUMSQ&s=19
As RCS said, knocking Russia out of SWIFT would be a huge move. Putin is then forced to back down (and lose power) or roll the dice and roll over into the Balts. NATO then either has to (1) back down or (2) go on a path to nuclear war because there is no way conventional forces would be able to retake the Balts without a massive struggle.
Without getting all Trump-y, he had his uses and being unpredictable was a key one. Biden is all too predictable and that is where the danger is.
I'm really not sure we would do that. In fact I wonder just where our red line is. Which country is our "Poland". It might, ironically, be Poland. We have emotional ties to them and 1m Poles live in the UK
Bulgaria and Romania, I'm not so sure. Western Europe definitely yes. Even France, damn them
December 28th is approximately when Omicron became the dominant variant in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch sequencing effort.
The Dutch lockdown has done two things. It's bought them about three weeks to speed through more vaccinations - at the cost not only of wrecking Christmas but shutting down their whole society, of course. And it's demonstrated to the rest of us that not even lockdowns beat Omicron, which means that we can (hopefully) cast lockdowns into a thousand-foot mineshaft and backfill it with quick-setting concrete.
Even if the Dutch people aren't grateful for their government's failed experiment, we should be.
As for Ukraine not being menaced, it has clearly escaped your attention that Putin seized an entire chunk of the Ukraine a few years ago. The Crimea. It's a bit odd to accuse them of "crying wolf" when a wolf bit their arm off in 2014
This is a frankly bizarre comment, all in all
The former New York Times columnist does not meet the three-year residency requirement, the secretary of state said Thursday.
Former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is ineligible to run for governor of Oregon because he does not meet a residency requirement, the state's top elections official said on Thursday.
“I stand by the determination of the experts in the Oregon Elections Division that Mr. Kristof does not currently meet the constitutional requirements to run or serve as Oregon governor,” state Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, said in a statement. “In this instance, the candidate clearly does not meet the constitutional requirement to run or serve as governor of Oregon."
Kristof can appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Kristof told POLITICO that the campaign was "preparing to go to court" and would hold a press conference later Thursday afternoon.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist announced last year that he was running in Democratic primary to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. He left his post at The New York Times in mid-October, before officially launching his bid two weeks later.
Even before he formally launched his campaign, Kristof was trying to push aside challenges to his residency. Attorneys representing Kristof argued last year that he has kept a residence in the state and “considered Oregon to be his home at all times,” despite the fact that he voted in New York in 2020 and has spent a considerable amount of time outside the state. His campaign submitted an extensive argument to state election officials earlier this week echoing that.
The state constitution requires gubernatorial candidates to have been a "resident within this state" for three years prior the election.
The field to replace Brown is crowded, even with Kristof’s apparent disqualification. Tina Kotek, the speaker of the state House, and state Treasurer Tobias Read are likely the two biggest names in a packed Democratic primary. Republicans also have a busy field, which includes former state House Minority Leader Christine Drazan and 2016 nominee Bud Pierce. Democrats have won every election for Oregon governor since 1986.
Kristof had been far outpacing his opponents in fundraising. Late last year, he said he raised over $2.5 million for his campaign. The filing deadline for the May 17 primary is March 8.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/06/nick-kristof-booted-off-oregon-ballot-526669
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54553132
A different side to the sensible Lowlanders that we've never seen before
It’s a theoretically possible answer, and difficult to disprove, but does engender a degree of scepticism
(So I expect there are a number of Tory ERG members cheering Russia on.)
I suspect retribution from the West would be Swift.
Every expert thinks China is intent of retaking the island. The only question is: how and when
"“Unifying Taiwan by force” as a Chinese policy has existed since Chairman Mao Zedong coined the term. Though the onset of the Korean War spared Taiwan such a fate at that time, China’s unfulfilled aspirations continue to haunt the Communist Party. In recent years, Xi has tied the annexation of Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland amid civil war in 1949, to his “China dream” for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” In the eyes of Communist Party elites, unifying Taiwan is the final piece in making China great again."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/threat-china-invading-taiwan-growing-every-day-what-u-s-ncna1273386
A few years ago we would have scoffed at the idea that Beijing might seize Hong Kong and crush its democracy. As we would have scoffed at the idea it might commit quasi-genocide on the Uighurs.
If Putin invaded the Balts and eventually got away with it without serious military escalation, then that's a massive victory for him - almost certainly would lead to the restoration of the old USSR and would destroy Nato. Nigel might believe that Biden would stand firm against Putin, I don't.
Watching the plugs, you'd think it was quite a serious programme. I start watching it, and it's business as usual. What a bunch of obnoxious w*****s.
Putin is like Xi. Revanchist. Both want to erase perceived shame and humiliation by restoring lost territories. Putin just has a longer list and a more difficult job
The prime minister is facing fresh questions after newly published WhatsApp messages with the Tory peer David Brownlow show Johnson called parts of his Downing Street residence a “tip” and asked for “approvals” so his decor designer, Lulu Lytle, could “get on with it” in November 2020.
He signed off the message by saying: “Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.” Lord Brownlow replied: “Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP! Thanks for thinking about GE2.”
On Thursday, Johnson was forced to make a “humble and sincere” apology for the texts not being given to his independent ethics adviser during an initial inquiry last spring.
Am certain that he obtained advice from pretty high-priced legal eagles, that he DID qualify. Appears (at least on surface) that Kristoff's problem was voting in 2020 in another state, namely New York.
Which was a really stupid thing to do IF he was already at that time thinking of running for Governor of the great Beaver State. And even if he wasn't, why the heck was he NOT registered to vote in Oregon IF he was so committed to his birth state?
As an aside, years ago had a neighbor here in Seattle, who was originally from a small town in eastern WA. Where he retained his legal domicile, in large measure by registering to vote there (where he owned property including a family house) rather than in the Emerald City.
Why he did this, I do not know. But same option was available to Nick Kristoff.
"[He] had some strange defect of mind that frequently led him to ask not "What did I do?" but "What is the most impressive explanation of my actions that cannot be disproved by published facts?""
They were based at Hacker College, Oxford. Which ought to exist by now in the "Yes, Minister" timeline. God, I'm old.
And its self fullfilling when they go down this path nobody serious will apply. Who wants to spend several months having to live and have to work with total bellends if you are serious about business.
"Yes, we gained new territory - just enough to bury our dead."
One other point to be fearful. China is becoming increasingly insular and cracking down on its companies, as well documented. That could be to rein the power of the billionaires but another argument is that Xi is laying the grounding for neutering any possible challenge to his rein if he does attack Taiwan.
"Living with Covid" doesn't equate to ignoring it and denying that it is a threat to health.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
A four-hundred-year-old body tasked with protecting the French language has threatened to sue the government unless it removes English words like “surname” from the country's new biometric identity cards.
L'Académie française argued the English “invasion” was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
This is reportedly the first time in almost four centuries that the Académie - official authority on the French language since 1635 - has challenged the government in this way.
French citizens possess both passports and ID cards, the latter of which was amended last year to include both French and English translations of all the fields, such as “name”, “address” and “nationality”. French passports already had fields in English.
Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, "perpetual secretary" of the Académie whose 40 members are called “immortals” as membership is for life, told Le Figaro it was an outrage to “place English on a par with French” on the ID cards, which French nationals are obliged to carry in case of police checks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/06/french-language-police-threaten-sue-government-illegal-english/
Threats and bullying?
On their own, that's probably insufficient.
They would need to make Taiwan's life very difficult, because otherwise all Taiwan does is buy more military hardware.
I think a growing blockade is the only thing that works. It's bloodshed free. But it slowly makes it hard for Taiwan to sell its exports or import food.
Mrs P. likes Digging for Britain and I half watch it with her... but half the programme now seems to be watching Dr Alice Roberts do a catwalk across a field whilst pouting to camera.
See also Nigella Lawson's cookery progs which when they started were actually about, you know, cooking rather than La Nigella.
1 Boris stops himself. Either he moderates his behaviour, or retires from No 10, all the better to cadge fivers.
2 He's stopped by (roughly) law. Some regulator unambiguously rules that he's been a bad boy and has the power to punish him.
3 He's stopped by (roughly) politics. Either Conservative MPs, or the electorate.
Put it like that, those who have gloated about BoJo's Teflon qualities for ever and ever may have a point.
Question: Can Russia succeed?
Ragging on l'Académie française is the first refuge of an insecure English-speaker.
On another tack - did you see where Pakistan is on the verge of appointing it's first woman supreme court judge?
Talk about yer "you've come a long way, baby'!
Also, you are assuming a straightforward obliteration of the air defences with simultaneous landings happening. It probably wouldn't work like that. If you had control of the air, your better bet would be to diminish the remaining resources. As happened with the Germans in Normandy in 1944, your ground units get obliterated even if they are mobile if the other side has air control. We also do not know how much cyber attacks would impact the defence chain (I'm not going Battlestar Galatica).
As a final point, Taiwan may have very good plans as RCS said but we do not know much about the quality of their pilots. Dura probably knows more.
I see no chance of him moderating his behaviour and in any event, plenty of skeletons seem to already been filed away in the cupboards to await their moment in the sun (or The Sun).
Worth remembering that a Hercules can carry a stunning... 62 parachutists.
62.
A parachute landing requires a *lot* of planes. And it requires that pretty much all ground defences have been eliminated first. Because otherwise those floating things get lots of holes in them.
China has such enormous power as a trading nation: she is the biggest trader in the world. And so many impoverished nations now owe China money. See Sri Lanka as an example
China can say to all these countries: we will stop trading with you, and call in our debts, unless you stop trading with Taiwan. That might easily work. It would then require America to do a sort of Berlin airlift for years - forever? - to keep Taiwan going
And I can see the Taiwanese eventually thinking Oh God fuck this, and yielding to some "Treaty"
As has been pointed out to you already, Putin was invited in. Have a look at a map, and tell us how the West could possibly have intervened.
I know plenty of Russians. Many of them are in the West, some in Russia.
All of them detest Putin ...
But, all of them -- without exception -- believe that the Eastern Ukraine & the Crimea belong to Russia.
There is little doubt that most Russians would support the recovery of this territory, even if they don't support Putin.
(Lviv and Western Ukraine are a different matter).
More significantly, Finland has said they will join NATO if Ukraine is invaded. I suspect NATO would support them if they are invaded, even if they are not members
While in a parallel thread others blame well-meaning medics and scientists for a downturn in hospitality takings, which was actually due to the fact that people (the public), in light of rising and slightly scary Covid rates, followed government (i.e. politicians') advice and were cautious before Xmas, when not much was known about Omicron.
Two men lay unconscious on a frigid Vermont night until Tinsley, a Shiloh Shepherd, led the authorities back to the site of the wreck.
As Cam Laundry lay unconscious in the snowy woods near his battered pickup after a rollover crash, his dog Tinsley ran off into the icy Vermont night and returned with help.
The authorities and local media are now hailing the 1-year-old Shiloh Shepherd as a “real-life Lassie” for her actions on Monday night.
Rescuers said they would not have spotted Mr. Laundry and his seriously injured passenger if not for Tinsley.
They credited her with preventing a terrible night from becoming a lot worse for Mr. Laundry and his passenger. The Vermont State Police said Mr. Laundry, 31, was intoxicated and cited him with driving under the influence. He says he is cooperating with the investigation.
He spoke with gratitude about Tinsley in a phone interview on Wednesday. “She’s my guardian,” Mr. Laundry said as she played with her squeaky squirrel toy. “The night was very cold. We were in hypothermic conditions when they reached us.”
After the crash around 10 p.m. Monday night, Tinsley crossed into New Hampshire, a mile or so away, and led the authorities back into Vermont to the wreck, which officials said they would not have noticed unless someone had seen the damaged guardrail that the truck had tumbled over.
At first the officers were simply trying to catch Tinsley to get her out of traffic on Interstate 89 after a driver reported a dog running loose. But she kept running north, slowing occasionally to keep the officers close behind, Lt. Dan Baldassarre of the New Hampshire State Police said in a statement. She eventually led them to a bridge over the wreck.
“It’s a real-life Lassie story,” he said, referring to the fictional collie from long-running TV and radio programs who had a penchant for saving humans who got themselves in trouble. “She’s the hero,” Lieutenant Baldassarre said. . . .