In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I don't want UK troops in Ukraine. If it goes that way, then we're in a world of sh*t. However, Russia's actions are the facilitator of this. If they don't want to face non-Ukrainian troops, then the answer is simple; don't threaten other countries.
It's not just Ukraine in the firing line; other Eastern European countries would be very fearful about Putin's actions, especially as he seems to want a USSR redux. If Poland (or Slovakia, or Romania etc) felt fearful, would you support them? And it only takes a couple of warplanes taking a wrong turn for them to dragged in as well.
The ball is in Putin's court. If he invades, it would be very easy for the situation to get out of his - or our - control.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
I know the feeling only too well - though little blobs of blutack, masking tape etc. to hold things together help. What really is worse is when the specs have been re-screwed so many times the thread strips or crosses and blunts ... happened to Mrs C. I got one of those cheap packs of assorted screws and things to mend almost any glasses - next size up worked a treat and my domestic polling rating jumped up. .
Be prepared! I did seriously get an empowered feeling from doggedly navigating the task, though, so maybe it's good that I wasn't. Just this once anyway. I'm not up for a repeat.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
AIUI Chinese tours it’s are not popular in Thailand, largely because they travel in groups and don’t tip. The only ones less popular are Russians, because the men especially are rude and over-assertive
In Bali Chinese airlines fly Chinese tourists to Chinese owned resorts where they are taken on Chinese managed tours to stop at Chinese run souvenir shops. The Balinese were trying to cut down on this before the pandemic started as very little money was entering the local economy.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
AIUI Chinese tours it’s are not popular in Thailand, largely because they travel in groups and don’t tip. The only ones less popular are Russians, because the men especially are rude and over-assertive
In Bali Chinese airlines fly Chinese tourists to Chinese owned resorts where they are taken on Chinese managed tours to stop at Chinese run souvenir shops. The Balinese were trying to cut down on this before the pandemic started as very little money was entering the local economy.
Although not as bad as that all inclusive holidays to the med have been criticised for exactly the same happening and local bars and restaurants not getting the consumers to,keep going.
The new Opinium poll is surely not good news for the Tories, because even with the "don't knows" taken into account, they'd still lose dozens of seats and be in opposition. The Tory coalition has broken apart and I cannot see right now where the voters come from, for a majority.
It's good news in that being 3 points behind is always better than being 10 points behind, and it means they are 7 points closer to whatever lead they need to retain a majority.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
I’m so bored of people constantly dissing China. They’ve built a magnificent expressway from my hotel, the Galle Face, to Colombo airport, enabling me to get there in about fifteen minutes
Surely 3 decades of debt slavery is worth the extra airside drinking time this brings me?
It’s even raised above the hovels so I can look down at their tiny picturesque Stone Age rooms with no running water, a bit like the westway where it goes over them caravans
Would you accept bondage to Beijing in return for them improving travel links to Heathrow?
Leon would do it for a bottle of gin
Leon? He's the guy who thinks (like Truss) that Rostov is *inside* Ukraine?
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Very sinister.
I was thinking how I made a point with dexterity.
Then you'd have to choose sides. Handy as you may be that's a choice.
Ironically, that's not true as I am in fact ambidextrous.
I have no future in comedy.
I dunno. If I go into stand up, you could come on board as a straight man.
(Am I even allowed to call them that these days, or do I have to say 'stooge?')
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
AIUI Chinese tours it’s are not popular in Thailand, largely because they travel in groups and don’t tip. The only ones less popular are Russians, because the men especially are rude and over-assertive
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I don't want UK troops in Ukraine. If it goes that way, then we're in a world of sh*t. However, Russia's actions are the facilitator of this. If they don't want to face non-Ukrainian troops, then the answer is simple; don't threaten other countries.
It's not just Ukraine in the firing line; other Eastern European countries would be very fearful about Putin's actions, especially as he seems to want a USSR redux. If Poland (or Slovakia, or Romania etc) felt fearful, would you support them? And it only takes a couple of warplanes taking a wrong turn for them to dragged in as well.
The ball is in Putin's court. If he invades, it would be very easy for the situation to get out of his - or our - control.
I will say honestly that I don't know what my position would be if Russia threatened to invade a NATO ally. It would have to be considerably more in favour of intervention, because such alliances are important and should not be entered into lightly.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
They're a useful thing to keep in a car glove box though.
Yes, I see that now. And my car was parked outside so I could, in fact, have gone out and got it from the glove box. Although, as I've just said to ydoethur, this was such a tiny tiny screw that I'm not sure they make a screwdriver small enough to cope with it. Also, as I've just said to Carnyx, I got a boost from the whole episode, so all's well that ends well really.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
We pay it already David , or did you miss that part, and as he says with many never making it we woudl actually be a lot better off not having to pay for the pampered south who live much longer as a consequence. Unionists just cannot accept facts, they prefer the too wee too poor mince every time. PS: You are turning into Carlotta.
You're double counting Malcolm, as does he. The £8.5bn we pay now reflects the fact that Scots on average die significantly earlier. If we lived as long as those in the south we would be paying a lot more. So this is not a gain that comes on independence, it is already reflected in the figures that we use.
London triple count the debt so it is still very safe call David.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I don't want UK troops in Ukraine. If it goes that way, then we're in a world of sh*t. However, Russia's actions are the facilitator of this. If they don't want to face non-Ukrainian troops, then the answer is simple; don't threaten other countries.
It's not just Ukraine in the firing line; other Eastern European countries would be very fearful about Putin's actions, especially as he seems to want a USSR redux. If Poland (or Slovakia, or Romania etc) felt fearful, would you support them? And it only takes a couple of warplanes taking a wrong turn for them to dragged in as well.
The ball is in Putin's court. If he invades, it would be very easy for the situation to get out of his - or our - control.
I will say honestly that I don't know what my position would be if Russia threatened to invade a NATO ally. It would have to be considerably more in favour of intervention, because such alliances are important and should not be entered into lightly.
I'd think it's a slam-dunk in favour of intervention. If not then, when?
But it's more complex than that. Russia does not have to threaten invasion of neighbouring states if they 'win' in Ukraine: the threat is implicit. "Do as we want or you'll be next."
Putin would be happy with regimes in those countries that were more pro-Russian. If he gets that, the it's a win for him. He's just a pathetic bully-boy with a massive army and nukes behind him. But he's still a pathetic bully-boy.
Russia has all the makings of being a great country. It has access to massive natural resources, a highly educated and literate population, and a brilliant track record in science, technology and the arts.
They should be a great country. They could be a great country, a world power challenging the USA and China in all good things. The fact they are not is not due to any failings of the Russian people: it is down to their leadership.
And for that, as much as anything else, Putin should be lambasted by anyone who wants Russia to succeed. He has take it in an easy but malign direction.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
Russia has all the makings of being a great country. It has access to massive natural resources, a highly educated and literate population, and a brilliant track record in science, technology and the arts.
They should be a great country. They could be a great country, a world power challenging the USA and China in all good things. The fact they are not is not due to any failings of the Russian people: it is down to their leadership.
And for that, as much as anything else, Putin should be lambasted by anyone who wants Russia to succeed. He has take it in an easy but malign direction.
Yes, there's little correlation between Putin's interests and Russia's. This is one of the (many) flaws of a dictatorship cf a democracy.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I don't want UK troops in Ukraine. If it goes that way, then we're in a world of sh*t. However, Russia's actions are the facilitator of this. If they don't want to face non-Ukrainian troops, then the answer is simple; don't threaten other countries.
It's not just Ukraine in the firing line; other Eastern European countries would be very fearful about Putin's actions, especially as he seems to want a USSR redux. If Poland (or Slovakia, or Romania etc) felt fearful, would you support them? And it only takes a couple of warplanes taking a wrong turn for them to dragged in as well.
The ball is in Putin's court. If he invades, it would be very easy for the situation to get out of his - or our - control.
I will say honestly that I don't know what my position would be if Russia threatened to invade a NATO ally. It would have to be considerably more in favour of intervention, because such alliances are important and should not be entered into lightly.
I'd think it's a slam-dunk in favour of intervention. If not then, when?
But it's more complex than that. Russia does not have to threaten invasion of neighbouring states if they 'win' in Ukraine: the threat is implicit. "Do as we want or you'll be next."
Putin would be happy with regimes in those countries that were more pro-Russian. If he gets that, the it's a win for him. He's just a pathetic bully-boy with a massive army and nukes behind him. But he's still a pathetic bully-boy.
Freud would have a field-day with him...
His formative experience was in the collapse of the GDR, which I think explains a lot. I think we would all agree that Putin's foreign policy agenda is to have a buffer of satellite states around the borders of Russia. That's shit for those bordering states who don't want to be subservient to Russia. I am not unsympathetic but neither am I unrealistic enough to think that Britain can do much about it.
BREAKING: Diplo sources in Vienna say that Russia has failed to respond to questions raised by Ukraine under the OSCE Vienna Document w/in the 48-hour timeframe. The deadline for a response expired today at 13:59 CET. Ukraine asked Russia to clarify "unusual military activities".
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Very sinister.
I was thinking how I made a point with dexterity.
Then you'd have to choose sides. Handy as you may be that's a choice.
Ironically, that's not true as I am in fact ambidextrous.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
I am not missing your point. I think your 'point' is bullshit, and not based in any belief in what is right for the Ukrainian (or Russian, for that matter) people.
There is nothing we can do to facilitate a climbdown - aside from giving Putin exactly what he wants. It is up to him to decide. He did MH17, Salisbury. Georgia, Litvinenko, Crimea, the Donbass and more. What on Earth makes you think that he's a reasonable actor who won't take any climbdown as a reason to push further?
The hysteria comes from your friends on the anti-war side.
BREAKING: Diplo sources in Vienna say that Russia has failed to respond to questions raised by Ukraine under the OSCE Vienna Document w/in the 48-hour timeframe. The deadline for a response expired today at 13:59 CET. Ukraine asked Russia to clarify "unusual military activities".
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It isn't central to your argument, but my understanding was that Ukraine couldn't use the Soviet nukes anyway.
Regarding Taiwan, perhaps they would be better off with nuclear weapons.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It's another reason why we should treat chemical and biological weapons attacks very seriously. They're the poor nation's nukes, and after Syria that Pandora's Box may well and truly have been opened
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
The new Opinium poll is surely not good news for the Tories, because even with the "don't knows" taken into account, they'd still lose dozens of seats and be in opposition. The Tory coalition has broken apart and I cannot see right now where the voters come from, for a majority.
It's good news in that being 3 points behind is always better than being 10 points behind, and it means they are 7 points closer to whatever lead they need to retain a majority.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
I believe CHB point is the 3% methodology discounts the 10% lead survey the voters gave and builds in the the tax cut labour scare stories swingback, so you can’t have this methodology and claim tax cut etc swing back as well on top of it. 😆 Is that bit clear, because there’s an awful lot of posters slow on the uptake to this fact the last 24hrs.
Horse is right why it’s an awful poll for the Tories, the worst this year when it sinks in, because the honest answer from voters is 10% the Tories are not even guaranteed that fantasy 7% the methodology hands them back. Tax cut con trick and labour scare stories not even guaranteed to work you understand.
Personally, I think the poll is flawed at predicting the next election because with this methodology reducing labour to 3% lead it lifts greens up from 5 to 6. There’s a flaw in this methodology because not a single poster on this forum feels Labour lose votes to green rather than other way round in real election situation.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It's another reason why we should treat chemical and biological weapons attacks very seriously. They're the poor nation's nukes, and after Syria that Pandora's Box may well and truly have been opened
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
We were of course absolutely right to do 'nothing' in Syria, and therefore not being in the throes of another Iraq at the same time as Covid hitting us. I find arguing otherwise to be absurd, but hey, you do you.
The new Opinium poll is surely not good news for the Tories, because even with the "don't knows" taken into account, they'd still lose dozens of seats and be in opposition. The Tory coalition has broken apart and I cannot see right now where the voters come from, for a majority.
It's good news in that being 3 points behind is always better than being 10 points behind, and it means they are 7 points closer to whatever lead they need to retain a majority.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
Well all that depends on whether the new methodology is more accurate than the old methodology.
MIke is suggesting VI is not the metric to fixate over anyway, and leadership statistics are a better measurement.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It isn't central to your argument, but my understanding was that Ukraine couldn't use the Soviet nukes anyway.
Regarding Taiwan, perhaps they would be better off with nuclear weapons.
Your understanding isn't really correct. They could have done, although it wasn't straightforward as many of the units in charge of them were Russian, not Ukrainian. What they would have needed to do is seize the warheads and put them on missiles under their control. That might have been expensive, but it wouldn't have been exactly difficult. (some more details here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html)
As for Taiwan, that's the point. Oddly, I am not concerned about Taiwan itself, because it has a sane government. I don't want, say, Venezuela or Tajikistan to get the same idea.
The new Opinium poll is surely not good news for the Tories, because even with the "don't knows" taken into account, they'd still lose dozens of seats and be in opposition. The Tory coalition has broken apart and I cannot see right now where the voters come from, for a majority.
It's good news in that being 3 points behind is always better than being 10 points behind, and it means they are 7 points closer to whatever lead they need to retain a majority.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
I believe CHB point is the 3% methodology discounts the 10% lead survey the voters gave and builds in the the tax cut labour scare stories swingback, so you can’t have this methodology and claim tax cut etc swing back as well on top of it. 😆 Is that bit clear, because there’s an awful lot of posters slow on the uptake to this fact the last 24hrs.
Horse is right why it’s an awful poll for the Tories, the worst this year when it sinks in, because the honest answer from voters is 10% the Tories are not even guaranteed that fantasy 7% the methodology hands them back. Tax cut con trick and labour scare stories not even guaranteed to work you understand.
Personally, I think the poll is flawed at predicting the next election because with this methodology reducing labour to 3% lead it lifts greens up from 5 to 6. There’s a flaw in this methodology because not a single poster on this forum feels Labour lose votes to green rather than other way round in real election situation.
Yes at the end. I don't think there are many who think the Greens will get half that nationally. I think there's another 2% in there for Labour when the time comes.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It's another reason why we should treat chemical and biological weapons attacks very seriously. They're the poor nation's nukes, and after Syria that Pandora's Box may well and truly have been opened
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
We were of course absolutely right to do 'nothing' in Syria, and therefore not being in the throes of another Iraq at the same time as Covid hitting us. I find arguing otherwise to be absurd, but hey, you do you.
I agree with you about Syria, but throwing Covid in there is a bafflingly weird. God knows what point you think you're making there.
The point I am making is that the Iraq war cost us £8.4 billion. Added to the unforeseen costs of Covid, the outcome for our public finances of Syria could have been calamitous.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
Russia v Ukraine and China v Taiwan looks like coordinated tag wrestling. It is a test of the Biden administration's ability to multitask in the face of European vacillation.
The new Opinium poll is surely not good news for the Tories, because even with the "don't knows" taken into account, they'd still lose dozens of seats and be in opposition. The Tory coalition has broken apart and I cannot see right now where the voters come from, for a majority.
It's good news in that being 3 points behind is always better than being 10 points behind, and it means they are 7 points closer to whatever lead they need to retain a majority.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
I believe CHB point is the 3% methodology discounts the 10% lead survey the voters gave and builds in the the tax cut labour scare stories swingback, so you can’t have this methodology and claim tax cut etc swing back as well on top of it. 😆 Is that bit clear, because there’s an awful lot of posters slow on the uptake to this fact the last 24hrs.
Horse is right why it’s an awful poll for the Tories, the worst this year when it sinks in, because the honest answer from voters is 10% the Tories are not even guaranteed that fantasy 7% the methodology hands them back. Tax cut con trick and labour scare stories not even guaranteed to work you understand.
Personally, I think the poll is flawed at predicting the next election because with this methodology reducing labour to 3% lead it lifts greens up from 5 to 6. There’s a flaw in this methodology because not a single poster on this forum feels Labour lose votes to green rather than other way round in real election situation.
Yes at the end. I don't think there are many who think the Greens will get half that nationally. I think there's another 2% in there for Labour when the time comes.
Russia has all the makings of being a great country. It has access to massive natural resources, a highly educated and literate population, and a brilliant track record in science, technology and the arts.
They should be a great country. They could be a great country, a world power challenging the USA and China in all good things. The fact they are not is not due to any failings of the Russian people: it is down to their leadership.
And for that, as much as anything else, Putin should be lambasted by anyone who wants Russia to succeed. He has take it in an easy but malign direction.
Yes, there's little correlation between Putin's interests and Russia's. This is one of the (many) flaws of a dictatorship cf a democracy.
Started the day convinced I was coming down with covid. Listened to a podcast about Havana Syndrome and briefly become convinced I had that instead. The time is now 4pm and I am now coming to terms with my actual diagnosis of hypochondria and a mild to moderate hangover
'Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.'
If you don't believe him, look at Switzerland, and the value over time of the Swiss franc vs. the poor old pound.
The best rose ever is Gertrude Jekyll from David Austin. Can be a climber or a shrub. Gorgeous colour and scent and absolutely no bother at all.
The one thing to do is when you plant - ideally bare root - is to sprinkle lots of micorrhizal fungi (a small powder) over the roots to give them a cracking start. Then water well and watch it grow. Water plenty in summer if it's hot. You need rich soil too but that is why roses grow so well here because we have plenty of it. That's all I do and I have grown it successfully in London and the Lakes. No peeing required. It is utterly wonderful.
The best tall climber is Madame Alfred Carriere. Same method as above.
Neither of them cause any bother at all. So ideal for lazy gardeners.
Photos below.
My roses were blighted by black spots on the leaves last year; the leaves turned yellow and dropped off and the flowers whitered up. Any advice?
Sounds like poor air circulation. Get rid of all the affected leaves and burn or bin. Don't leave in the garden as otherwise the spores will spread. Put lots of mulch around your rose. Feed in the spring and water well. There are also fungicides available which help deal with it.
Oh look, the Guardian blog adding the info that fleshes out my idle musings about Poland earlier:
Poland preparing for influx of Ukrainian refugees Poland is preparing for “various scenarios” including a possible influx of refugees if Russia were to attack Ukraine, Poland’s interior minister Mariusz Kaminski tweeted on Sunday.
“It is obvious that due to the situation in Ukraine we are preparing for various scenarios. One of them is the actions of the [provinces] related to the possible influx of refugees from Ukraine who, due to a possible conflict, may seek a safe haven in our country,” Kaminski said.
The mayor of the eastern Polish town of Ciechanow said on Saturday that he was asked by his regional government to prepare accommodation for possible refugees.
“We were asked to indicate the list of accommodation facilities for refugees, the number of people it would be possible to accommodate, the costs involved and the time for adaptation of buildings with a recommendation of up to 48 hours,” Krzysztof Kosinski tweeted.
In late-January, Poland’s deputy interior minister Maciej Wasik said Poland was bracing for up to one million Ukrainian migrants.
A million refugees, eh? But sure, "nothing to do with us" I guess..
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It's another reason why we should treat chemical and biological weapons attacks very seriously. They're the poor nation's nukes, and after Syria that Pandora's Box may well and truly have been opened
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
We were of course absolutely right to do 'nothing' in Syria, and therefore not being in the throes of another Iraq at the same time as Covid hitting us. I find arguing otherwise to be absurd, but hey, you do you.
No, we were not. Firstly, Russia doing something in Syria has not cost them the same as Iraq. Secondly, our relative inactions has led to zero punishment for the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations - again. Thirdly, our relative inaction has emboldened Putin, who thinks that we will do essentially nothing when he threatens Ukraine, as we have done essentially nothing time and time again.
The moral case for action on Syria was massive. In part, we are in our current situation because of our inactions. The world is in a much more dangerous situation because of it.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
Russia has all the makings of being a great country. It has access to massive natural resources, a highly educated and literate population, and a brilliant track record in science, technology and the arts.
They should be a great country. They could be a great country, a world power challenging the USA and China in all good things. The fact they are not is not due to any failings of the Russian people: it is down to their leadership.
And for that, as much as anything else, Putin should be lambasted by anyone who wants Russia to succeed. He has take it in an easy but malign direction.
Yes, there's little correlation between Putin's interests and Russia's. This is one of the (many) flaws of a dictatorship cf a democracy.
You think your interests and bojos coincide?
Sweet
Ha. I was going to tag exactly that rider on but decided to keep it clean. Johnson is indeed all Johnson and no national interest, esp now he's in 'crisis' with the party. But still, come that GE, and if his MPs don't do what they ought to, we the demos can nail the bastard.
One of the things that makes me so angry about the way the MSM covers polling is their obsession with voting intention.
True no doubt, but Pot? Kettle? isn't one of PBs USPs a magnificent obsession with VI even when the relevant election is years away?
VI gives a a sort of share price in a share that can only be traded on GE day. Of course it's completely worthless, but only in the sense that most eccentric obsessions are worthless to everyone else. (Austin Allegro Appreciation Society etc).
As to "Let's stop this fetish...." Not a chance. The MSM makes news out of what is can get. All polling and surveys are cheap copy. Nearly all are worthless. The alternative is to send expensive journalists to Syria, Afghanistan, the Russia Ukraine border and report actual news. No.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
It seems just as plausible to me that Russia is not planning to invade the Ukraine -- and when it doesn't happen, Biden & Johnson will then take credit for it.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
There will not be a leadership election if Putin invades Ukr on Wednesday.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
It seems just as plausible to me that Russia is not planning to invade the Ukraine -- and when it doesn't happen, Biden & Johnson will then take credit for it.
It would not surprise me if Putin had not yet made the go/no-go decision. But the build-up of troops and equipment is giving him the option.
But he also has a track record of invading: Georgia, Crimea, Donbass etc. Does a leopard change its spots?
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
It seems just as plausible to me that Russia is not planning to invade the Ukraine -- and when it doesn't happen, Biden & Johnson will then take credit for it.
They're definitely "planning to invade". I'm very far from sure that they intend to invade though.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
100%. It just shows the level of hatred for the West that exists in pockets of left and right, that they bend over backwards to find ways to blame the West in what is a completely unambiguous case of Russian aggression. Parts of the left because they like to self identify as fighting the establishment, and parts of the right because they are angry the West is a less conservative society than in their idealized vision.
max seddon @maxseddon The proposals to shake up the west's Russia policy in here include moving for "regime change" in Russia, which one assumes would turn it into Iraq (if it worked) or start World War II (if it doesn't)
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
The armed services are there for the defence of the realm. Secondly they are there to secure vital British interests overseas.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Holding Russia to the Budapest Memorandum is surely critical to British interests.
It's highly desirable, but how is it critical to our interests?
Because we don't want every country on earth deciding the only way to stop bigger neighbours bullying them is to get nukes. That could very wrong, very easily. Quite the reverse, we want them to be signing more agreements to move towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
It's another reason why we should treat chemical and biological weapons attacks very seriously. They're the poor nation's nukes, and after Syria that Pandora's Box may well and truly have been opened
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
We were of course absolutely right to do 'nothing' in Syria, and therefore not being in the throes of another Iraq at the same time as Covid hitting us. I find arguing otherwise to be absurd, but hey, you do you.
No, we were not. Firstly, Russia doing something in Syria has not cost them the same as Iraq. Secondly, our relative inactions has led to zero punishment for the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations - again. Thirdly, our relative inaction has emboldened Putin, who thinks that we will do essentially nothing when he threatens Ukraine, as we have done essentially nothing time and time again.
The moral case for action on Syria was massive. In part, we are in our current situation because of our inactions. The world is in a much more dangerous situation because of it.
The best strategy for aggressive dictators is always containment. We have failed again and again with Putin.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
Well the 'lying to parliament' charge is proven and it hasn't been enough. Next comes the police. If the PM who made the Covid laws and told the country every night on prime time tv how important it was to follow them gets a stack of fixed penalty notices for breaking them himself will THIS be enough? If not we will have to conclude I'm right and it's down to the public via polls and/or elections to remove him. And if he escapes being fined on a technicality will this slipperiest of customers somehow make out it was all a witchhunt and the only right and proper thing now is for him to get on with the job of delivering on what he was elected to do? Either way I'd say we're in 'couldn't make it up' territory.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
There will not be a leadership election if Putin invades Ukr on Wednesday.
Got it! That was why they sent such a feeble person as Truss to warn off the Russians - really, to encourage them to invade and save Boris's skin for him....
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
You can tell a lot from the public theatre, and the continuous humiliation the UK has experienced over the last decade. This article (below) is very good.
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
There will not be a leadership election if Putin invades Ukr on Wednesday.
Got it! That was why they sent such a feeble person as Truss to warn off the Russians - really, to encourage them to invade and save Boris's skin for him....
Our Tories aren't half devious.....
In (slightly) more plausible conspiracy theorising, perhaps Opinium have been persuaded to change their methodology as part of Operation 'Save Big Dog'.
max seddon @maxseddon The proposals to shake up the west's Russia policy in here include moving for "regime change" in Russia, which one assumes would turn it into Iraq (if it worked) or start World War II (if it doesn't)
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
You can tell a lot from the public theatre, and the continuous humiliation the UK has experienced over the last decade. This article (below) is very good.
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
max seddon @maxseddon The proposals to shake up the west's Russia policy in here include moving for "regime change" in Russia, which one assumes would turn it into Iraq (if it worked) or start World War II (if it doesn't)
So the hawkish proposal is the west should be looking to do to Russia what the west is criticising Russia for in Ukraine. Hmmm. Regime change has been an utter shambles whenever attempted previously. It would not end well here too, but it won’t happen.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
You can tell a lot from the public theatre, and the continuous humiliation the UK has experienced over the last decade. This article (below) is very good.
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
So Anne Applebaum thinks that Liz Truss has control over energy supplies to Europe, schools in Switzerland, and *double checks* power over the sea. The woman is unhinged. Quite apart from the fact that what she's advocating is a foreign policy of flouncing around and pissing off your opponents for kicks, like an early Mussolini.
Tom Tugendhat @TomTugendhatIn 1945 the Soviet Union and her allies brought to justice those who had caused so much suffering to millions of their compatriots in a horrific war.
Those who had waged it faced four possible charges. 1/
When one considers Johnson’s regular breaches of the ten principles of ministerial conduct (his misleading of Parliament on a range of question being particularly notable*) and his manifest failure to adhere to the seven principles of public life, it can strike one as ludicrous that it should so widely be thought that a judgment on his fitness to be Prime Minister is likely to turn on whether he is issued with a fixed penalty notice. That it should so turn is the opinion of my MP. I suppose it's a blessing that she's not one of those who are trying to make light of the parties ("they all worked so hard and were in Downing Street all day, and we shouldn't begrudge them a bit of fun in the evening") who want us to think that he can remain P.M. even if he's fined. * I'm thinking of figures on poverty, crime, export markets, availability of booster vaccines, and Labour's policies, etc.
Italy really are only going backwards. Bit of a waste of time. The Six Nations could be decided on who gets the best weather v Italy, and therefore runs up the biggest scoreline.
Italy really are only going backwards. Bit of a waste of time. The Six Nations could be decided on who gets the best weather v Italy, and therefore runs up the biggest scoreline.
Have Russia got a good egg-ball team? Mollify Putin with them in the 6N at Italy's expense. Or something.
Italy really are only going backwards. Bit of a waste of time. The Six Nations could be decided on who gets the best weather v Italy, and therefore runs up the biggest scoreline.
Maybe it is time to introduce promotion and relegation to the top level of the FIRA European championship. Georgia would probably give a much better contest and would really benefit from the opportunity in terms of development. There is real passion for the game there, as there is in Northern Italy.
Tom Tugendhat @TomTugendhatIn 1945 the Soviet Union and her allies brought to justice those who had caused so much suffering to millions of their compatriots in a horrific war.
Those who had waged it faced four possible charges. 1/
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
You can tell a lot from the public theatre, and the continuous humiliation the UK has experienced over the last decade. This article (below) is very good.
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
So Anne Applebaum thinks that Liz Truss has control over energy supplies to Europe, schools in Switzerland, and *double checks* power over the sea. The woman is unhinged. Quite apart from the fact that what she's advocating is a foreign policy of flouncing around and pissing off your opponents for kicks, like an early Mussolini.
Her condemnation is as much of Germany, as it is of the UK. The west have been too soft. She is right that the Russians will only respect hard power and definitive actions. Russia has already invaded part of Ukraine with no significant consequence, and the west have already effectively said that they can invade more and we will do nothing. So it will eventually continue, until such point as they are met head on.
Italy really are only going backwards. Bit of a waste of time. The Six Nations could be decided on who gets the best weather v Italy, and therefore runs up the biggest scoreline.
Have Russia got a good egg-ball team? Mollify Putin with them in the 6N at Italy's expense. Or something.
Yes, they have. They are a decent side who have qualified for a couple of world cups and there is a real rivalry with Georgia. Tend to play in the top FIRA league along with Georgia, Romania and Spain. The real stronghold of Russian rugby is Krasnoyarsk where both Krasny Yar and Enisei-STM are decent sides who have played in European competitions. Saracens partnered with a Russian side too, VVA Podmoskoviye IIRC.
A Ukrainian soldier on the Donbas front lines near Luhansk, with whom I’m in touch, reports that his unit's leaves have been cancelled & soldiers on leave have been recalled. His unit is under strict orders to obey the ceasefire and not shoot back “under any circumstances.”
“I think we are now in the final stages before the attack,” he said.
Overall, and based on other reports I'm receiving from Ukrainian troops, the Ukrainian armed forces are quietly preparing their defenses while also being incredibly cautious about not giving Russia a false flag pretense for escalation.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Sorry, but you're completely missing my point - as in a lot of dangerous situations, what we're seeing is people taking one side and not looking for a way through. I agree that Putin is the aggressor - whether he invades or not, but especially if he invades. I'm taking a sronger line than (I think) Biden, Johnson or Scholz on the concrete leverage of Nordstream, suggesting we should threaten *never* to authorise it if an invasion takes place. The current position appears to be that it won't be opened any time soon after an invasion, which is pathetic - you can guarantee it'll be quietly revisited after a year.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
Unless you are still connected to the backroom negotiations, Nick, I am not sure you can state that there is no attempt to find an acceptable climb down. There is the public theatre, which has to be where it is at atm, and then there is the real behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
You can tell a lot from the public theatre, and the continuous humiliation the UK has experienced over the last decade. This article (below) is very good.
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
So Anne Applebaum thinks that Liz Truss has control over energy supplies to Europe, schools in Switzerland, and *double checks* power over the sea. The woman is unhinged. Quite apart from the fact that what she's advocating is a foreign policy of flouncing around and pissing off your opponents for kicks, like an early Mussolini.
Her condemnation is as much of Germany, as it is of the UK. The west have been too soft. She is right that the Russians will only respect hard power and definitive actions. Russia has already invaded part of Ukraine with no significant consequence, and the west have already effectively said that they can invade more and we will do nothing. So it will eventually continue, until such point as they are met head on.
It's a simple calculus of risk, and potential gain. NATO considers it too risky to directly engage a major military and also nuclear power for an area that is not a vital interest. That's quite rational, but also not too great for the Ukrainians,.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
There will not be a leadership election if Putin invades Ukr on Wednesday.
That’s your statement. I have finished laughing now at your your silly statement to actually be concerned people may actually say this without impunity. So I demand you explain yourself. What on earths your thinking?
What is it about Ben Wallace as stand in Prime Minister, dealing with this security crisis whilst the leadership election sorts itself out that puts you, personally, in the opposite camp from every other patriotic and concerned UK National who not only won’t have a problem with that, but it’s actually preferable.
Don’t you want Wallace in there managing this ASAP in place of Nut Nut and Liar running the show, their unique way?
Alternatively, you could just reply you missthought.
Big G is right, a vote most likely can’t be held until return from recess Monday or Tuesday week. But the letters can still go in this week, and announcement of the vote of no confidence in little over 7 days.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Not this coming week but the following when the HOC return and yes I believe we are the last weeks of his premiership
My letter back from my MP told me I must wait for the results of the Met. inquiry and the full Gray report before anyone should pass judgement on any wrongdoing.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
There will not be a leadership election if Putin invades Ukr on Wednesday.
That’s your statement. I have finished laughing now at your your silly statement to actually be concerned people may actually say this without impunity. So I demand you explain yourself. What on earths your thinking?
What is it about Ben Wallace as stand in Prime Minister, dealing with this security crisis whilst the leadership election sorts itself out that puts you, personally, in the opposite camp from every other patriotic and concerned UK National who not only won’t have a problem with that, but it’s actually preferable.
Don’t you want Wallace in there managing this ASAP in place of Nut Nut and Liar running the show, their unique way?
Alternatively, you could just reply you missthought.
Big G is right, a vote most likely can’t be held until return from recess Monday or Tuesday week. But the letters can still go in this week, and announcement of the vote of no confidence in little over 7 days.
And let’s not forget you used the word “IF” in you statement. As in “IF” Putin decides to disregard his Generals and send their men into the meat grinder with f all to gain from it. You have to concede now, if Putin has successfully brought the EU and Ukraine to the Minsk agreement - splitting them from Washinton and London - he can de-escalate having played a blinder.
Quite an interesting point of view here, which I suspect we might hear more of at least some aspects of as the weeks go on, and which considers this all as part of a co-ordinated Russian-Chinese attempt to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency .
Although the main news in Tallinn is the selection of the Estonian Eurovision entry, someone did ask me an interesting rhetorical question, namely "how much damage has already been done to the Putin regime ?"
Meanwhile, there seems to be growing resistence to the idea of going into Ukraine from inside the Russian high command after the publication of a letter from retired General Ivashov who is the chairman of the All Russian officers assembly. In it he denies that NATO is a threat, that a war with Ukraine will destroy the standing of Russia and would be a criminal act, and he even calls on Putin to stand down.
So the evidence that Putin is in a trap of his own making is definitely growing. One model for thinking about the way the regime works is that instead of being a classic tyranny it is a power broking opreration between different mafia factions. However by letting Kadyrov persecute his enemies so brutally it has put two of the factions, Russian nationalists and Chechens at each other´s throats. The invasion of Ukraine could easily see a return of the "mothers" and significant protests if the war goes badly. I even heard someone who has just returned from Moscow suggest that Putin´s health might suddenly become "an issue" and there is slightly feverish talk of a possible coup.
So the short answer is that the regime is already under very heavy pressure. However the German sherpas, ahead of Scholz´s visit to Moscow are playing down expectations of any breakthrough. Nevertheless if the Kremlin does not take this last minute lifeline and actually enacts the detailed plans for an invasion that have been made public then I think that there is a real risk that the regime could face a terminal crisis within a matter of weeks or months.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
100%. It just shows the level of hatred for the West that exists in pockets of left and right, that they bend over backwards to find ways to blame the West in what is a completely unambiguous case of Russian aggression. Parts of the left because they like to self identify as fighting the establishment, and parts of the right because they are angry the West is a less conservative society than in their idealized vision.
Well done for spotting that this is an issue for both left and right. Add to that the political links Russia tries to forge with all parties. Conservatives and Labour have definitely both unwisely accepted donations from Russian-linked people. Doubtless other parties have also been vulnerable to this, and nobody should be complacent about it.
I agree with you Farooq! except it’s worse than you say. The naivety of our political class in how they allowed themselves to be groomed and accepted the dirty money of the Chinese and Russians now means it’s not being properly dealt with or exposed because none of them want the truth to come out. 🤬
What is it about the UK mindset, it couldn’t see the reason why Chinese and Russian soft power was tickling the back of the neck and giving a shoulder massage?
There is a huge story here the MSM (as Mike writes in header or LSM to be accurate) need to put their political bias aside and expose for us.
Quite an interesting point of view here, which I suspect we might hear more of at least some aspects of as the weeks go on, and which considers this all as part of a co-ordinated Russian-Chinese attempt to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency .
Unlikely. China has $3 trillion of FX reserves, mostly in USD. The USD has been strengthening over the last year and will likely strengthen even more if the shooting starts, as it tends to in a risk-off environment. The sell-off in US Treasuries reflects the Fed pivoting to a more aggressive hiking cycle rather than anything China or Russia is up to. China certainly wants the RMB to play a bigger role as a global reserve currency alongside the USD, and both Russia and China want to weaken the US as a global power, but for China especially taking down the USD would be a self-destructive act, even if it were within their power to do it.
Comments
It's not just Ukraine in the firing line; other Eastern European countries would be very fearful about Putin's actions, especially as he seems to want a USSR redux. If Poland (or Slovakia, or Romania etc) felt fearful, would you support them? And it only takes a couple of warplanes taking a wrong turn for them to dragged in as well.
The ball is in Putin's court. If he invades, it would be very easy for the situation to get out of his - or our - control.
What I'm saying, though, is that we're mostly not handling it well - 90 parts hysteria to 10 points actual help for Ukraine and 0 points willingness to consider whether there are reasonable ways to facilitate a climbdown. Flipping the above, simply agreeing to open Nordstream if he buggers off, and closing it permanently if he ever tries it on again would be the route I'd suggest.
The alternative is to leave the messy disaster to others to make the mess and endure the resulting disaster. Like we did (miraculously) in Vietnam.
Avoiding involvement in wars on the continent has been the cornerstone of successful British foreign policy since the 18th century. And happily we have just said 'Bon Voyage' to political involvement with the continent. Just let them get on with it.
Although not as bad as that all inclusive holidays to the med have been criticised for exactly the same happening and local bars and restaurants not getting the consumers to,keep going.
It's much easier to see them making up 5 points with a mixture of pre-election tax cuts and anti-Labour scare stories than it would be to see them making up a gap of 12 points (if we assume a 2 point lead would give a Tory majority, say).
(Am I even allowed to call them that these days, or do I have to say 'stooge?')
Like a victim getting blamed for provoking the criminal.
The only party that can provoke or resolve the whole conflict is Russia.
Precisely because they artificially manufactured it in the first place.
https://twitter.com/perfiliev/status/1492844124902498311
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/13/ukraine-crisis-live-biden-warns-putin-costs-of-russia-invasion-kyiv-latest-updates
But it's more complex than that. Russia does not have to threaten invasion of neighbouring states if they 'win' in Ukraine: the threat is implicit. "Do as we want or you'll be next."
Putin would be happy with regimes in those countries that were more pro-Russian. If he gets that, the it's a win for him. He's just a pathetic bully-boy with a massive army and nukes behind him. But he's still a pathetic bully-boy.
Freud would have a field-day with him...
Russia has all the makings of being a great country. It has access to massive natural resources, a highly educated and literate population, and a brilliant track record in science, technology and the arts.
They should be a great country. They could be a great country, a world power challenging the USA and China in all good things. The fact they are not is not due to any failings of the Russian people: it is down to their leadership.
And for that, as much as anything else, Putin should be lambasted by anyone who wants Russia to succeed. He has take it in an easy but malign direction.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that in light of Ukraine and imminently Taiwan too many have already drawn that conclusion.
https://twitter.com/StLiechtenstein/status/1492879947790225409
There is nothing we can do to facilitate a climbdown - aside from giving Putin exactly what he wants. It is up to him to decide. He did MH17, Salisbury. Georgia, Litvinenko, Crimea, the Donbass and more. What on Earth makes you think that he's a reasonable actor who won't take any climbdown as a reason to push further?
The hysteria comes from your friends on the anti-war side.
Regarding Taiwan, perhaps they would be better off with nuclear weapons.
It seems many of the people saying we should do nothing now are the same people who were in denial, or saying we should do nothing, then...
Horse is right why it’s an awful poll for the Tories, the worst this year when it sinks in, because the honest answer from voters is 10% the Tories are not even guaranteed that fantasy 7% the methodology hands them back. Tax cut con trick and labour scare stories not even guaranteed to work you understand.
Personally, I think the poll is flawed at predicting the next election because with this methodology reducing labour to 3% lead it lifts greens up from 5 to 6. There’s a flaw in this methodology because not a single poster on this forum feels Labour lose votes to green rather than other way round in real election situation.
MIke is suggesting VI is not the metric to fixate over anyway, and leadership statistics are a better measurement.
As for Taiwan, that's the point. Oddly, I am not concerned about Taiwan itself, because it has a sane government. I don't want, say, Venezuela or Tajikistan to get the same idea.
There’s nothing all that calculated about how a vote of no confidence happens, it just takes random backbench MPs to put letters in. If it takes more than one vonc to get rid of Johnson, I don’t think this bothers the rebels to stop them going for it.
Not a doubt in my mind we are entering the last full week of Johnson’s premiership.
It’s all about to kick off. 🙂
Sweet
https://twitter.com/CharlotteIvers/status/1492889884725547008?
'Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.'
If you don't believe him, look at Switzerland, and the value over time of the Swiss franc vs. the poor old pound.
Italy 0
56 mins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56974271
The moral case for action on Syria was massive. In part, we are in our current situation because of our inactions. The world is in a much more dangerous situation because of it.
I, for one, have no idea what that behind-the-scenes activity is, or where it stands.
One of the things that makes me so angry about the way the MSM covers polling is their obsession with voting intention.
True no doubt, but Pot? Kettle? isn't one of PBs USPs a magnificent obsession with VI even when the relevant election is years away?
VI gives a a sort of share price in a share that can only be traded on GE day. Of course it's completely worthless, but only in the sense that most eccentric obsessions are worthless to everyone else. (Austin Allegro Appreciation Society etc).
As to "Let's stop this fetish...." Not a chance. The MSM makes news out of what is can get. All polling and surveys are cheap copy. Nearly all are worthless. The alternative is to send expensive journalists to Syria, Afghanistan, the Russia Ukraine border and report actual news. No.
Maybe Big Dog did nothing wrong ...
Northern Powergrid sorry for Storm Arwen trillion pound compensation error
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-60369098
But he also has a track record of invading: Georgia, Crimea, Donbass etc. Does a leopard change its spots?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/13/i-almost-cried-woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-expresses-relief-after-met-chief-cressida-dick-quits
@maxseddon
The proposals to shake up the west's Russia policy in here include moving for "regime change" in Russia, which one assumes would turn it into Iraq (if it worked) or start World War II (if it doesn't)
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1492851450606718980
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-russia-diplomacy-ukraine/622075/
Our Tories aren't half devious.....
"...the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news... Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:
Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won’t respect and promises he won’t keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we’ll get to work on regime change in Russia.
Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov’s official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!"
https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2022/02/12/why-the-wests-diplomacy-with-russia-keeps-failing/
@TomTugendhatIn 1945 the Soviet Union and her allies brought to justice those who had caused so much suffering to millions of their compatriots in a horrific war.
Those who had waged it faced four possible charges. 1/
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1492830556358328321
* I'm thinking of figures on poverty, crime, export markets, availability of booster vaccines, and Labour's policies, etc.
Would Biden interrupt it to give a Presidential Address?
Would the BBC coverage of the Super Bowl also carry the Presidential Address?
Will it make me more or less paranoid to watch the film "The Sum Of All Fears" this evening before kick off?
The Six Nations could be decided on who gets the best weather v Italy, and therefore runs up the biggest scoreline.
A Ukrainian soldier on the Donbas front lines near Luhansk, with whom I’m in touch, reports that his unit's leaves have been cancelled & soldiers on leave have been recalled. His unit is under strict orders to obey the ceasefire and not shoot back “under any circumstances.”
“I think we are now in the final stages before the attack,” he said.
Overall, and based on other reports I'm receiving from Ukrainian troops, the Ukrainian armed forces are quietly preparing their defenses while also being incredibly cautious about not giving Russia a false flag pretense for escalation.
What is it about Ben Wallace as stand in Prime Minister, dealing with this security crisis whilst the leadership election sorts itself out that puts you, personally, in the opposite camp from every other patriotic and concerned UK National who not only won’t have a problem with that, but it’s actually preferable.
Don’t you want Wallace in there managing this ASAP in place of Nut Nut and Liar running the show, their unique way?
Alternatively, you could just reply you missthought.
Big G is right, a vote most likely can’t be held until return from recess Monday or Tuesday week. But the letters can still go in this week, and announcement of the vote of no confidence in little over 7 days.
https://twitter.com/Samir_Madani/status/1492833374389645316
Presumably it is now festooned with tracking devices?
https://3circleinvestments.substack.com/p/russia-isnt-attacking-ukraine-they
The point is that Putin has given tacit approval to Kadyrov (the Chechen leader) to continue his murderous campaign against journalists and even his making threats to a former judge. https://cpj.org/2022/02/investigative-reporter-elena-milashina-flees-russia-after-threats-from-chechen-leader/
Meanwhile, there seems to be growing resistence to the idea of going into Ukraine from inside the Russian high command after the publication of a letter from retired General Ivashov who is the chairman of the All Russian officers assembly. In it he denies that NATO is a threat, that a war with Ukraine will destroy the standing of Russia and would be a criminal act, and he even calls on Putin to stand down.
http://ooc.su/news/obrashhenie_obshherossijskogo_oficerskogo_sobranija_k_prezidentu_i_grazhdanam_rossijskoj_federacii/2022-01-31-79-0-1 (in Russian, sorry).
So the evidence that Putin is in a trap of his own making is definitely growing. One model for thinking about the way the regime works is that instead of being a classic tyranny it is a power broking opreration between different mafia factions. However by letting Kadyrov persecute his enemies so brutally it has put two of the factions, Russian nationalists and Chechens at each other´s throats. The invasion of Ukraine could easily see a return of the "mothers" and significant protests if the war goes badly. I even heard someone who has just returned from Moscow suggest that Putin´s health might suddenly become "an issue" and there is slightly feverish talk of a possible coup.
So the short answer is that the regime is already under very heavy pressure. However the German sherpas, ahead of Scholz´s visit to Moscow are playing down expectations of any breakthrough. Nevertheless if the Kremlin does not take this last minute lifeline and actually enacts the detailed plans for an invasion that have been made public then I think that there is a real risk that the regime could face a terminal crisis within a matter of weeks or months.
What is it about the UK mindset, it couldn’t see the reason why Chinese and Russian soft power was tickling the back of the neck and giving a shoulder massage?
There is a huge story here the MSM (as Mike writes in header or LSM to be accurate) need to put their political bias aside and expose for us.
A. Crimea Wurst!
(I thank you!)
Putin.