As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Nick, If you read this post from HY and decide to sue, I’m sure some on PB will have a whip round for you.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
I'm sorry but on behalf of @NickPalmer (sorry Nick I know you can speak for yourself, but really this needs to be said) I feel sure that last sentence is complete and utter bollocks.
Sure. That is why he always giving excuses for Putin.
The idea that Putin is a Communist is faciful.
But the strange way that some on the left instinctively try and cuddle Russia and China is still funny. Haven't they noticed?
I mean, the fact that Putin uses the literal, real Russian Nazi* thugs to beat up the opposition might be a bit of a clue.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
" is it really risking world war three?"
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
" is it really risking world war three?"
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
Incidentally, if Putin fucks with Craft Cocktails in Gdansk, I think we should launch Trident.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Nick, If you read this post from HY and decide to sue, I’m sure some on PB will have a whip round for you.
I agree. The idea we should be nice to one another should be strongly discouraged.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
It's a fact that pretty well all of the territories sequentially occupied by Stalin and Hitler saw massacres perpetrated by some of the inhabitants of those territories.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
To be honest though, as I read through the link to 1943 Poet Laureate posted yesterday, I felt like I didn’t like Ukrainian nationalists. It wasn’t that they were fighting, there was no justification for the crime of ethnic cleansing 😕
Being very honest here, it had coloured my views when todays Ukraine nationalists came on the news afterwards. And I’m not even Polish.
If you look at the history of WWII, inhabitants of every country serially occupied by Stalin and Hitler committed appalling massacres.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
It’s fair to say. But it is I am upset by reading about all of it done by all of them, especially 100K women and children tortured and murdered for ethic cleanse, and later generation of same Nationalists won’t call it out.
But we read them sequentially one by one.
Also interesting you quote post I almost immediately deleted, having reflected. I would now add though, sacking Eurovision singer for one visit to Crimea doesn’t sound too tolerant, from people regarding the land she visited and everyone in it as their own 😕
I don’t think anyone’s comfortable with it. And you’ll see other countries (and I think particularly the former communist satellites ?) having much the same difficulty in coming to terms with their wartime pasts. Latvia, for example.
Perhaps we’re not so wildly different in that respect when you consider our reluctance to deal with some of our past ?
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
That is the solution that I would wish to see. The Lib Dems should support any policies - put forward by any other political party - which were in accordance with Lib Dem principles and policies .
One extra advantage of this approach, is that other parties would have to take a look at what Lib Dem stand for before making up their own minds - and so would the members of the public - and even, perhaps, the media.
Strangely enough, this was how the Lib-Lab pact worked in practice in the 1970s. We had a good sensible government for several months before the extremists on the far left wrecked everything, and Thatcher finished it all off.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
So that’s it? Get the popcorn in, watch the bloody bull fight with inevitable death of the bull, whatever dreams it had in thiis world going down with it. After, we chat about end of covid restrictions, holidays, pizza toppings?
Boris and Truss have sat down with the Ukraine leaders this week. All the Ukraine government will have for comfort whilst lying in their graves will be some new sanctions on the Russian people for a while, till it all blows over. The last round of sanctions didn’t work, is that ever discussed? Igor the McMafia banned? Only for as long as it takes to transfer assets to family member and pick up a fake passport - the West was dealing with them again!
Where’s the resolve to put words into action?
You might underestimate, after all the anti Putin propaganda and NATO build up in the region, how watching Ukraine defeated by Putin is going to colour UK and US voters toward Boris, Truss and Biden.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
But the cases are very clearly different. The latter two were not deliberate acts of policy. The first one was. And it was aimed very clearly at a particular group of people - the supporters of the Ukrainian republic and the White armies from the Civil War. So it is not in any way inconsistent to suggest that the first is a genocide and the others are not. Nor is it hate speech.
The Russians don't like it, just as the Turks don't like hearing about the Armenian genocide. But it's a perfectly reasonable way for the Ukrainians to describe it.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
1.5. The programs where the US *lent* nuclear weapons to allies make a return.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
I know. The bastard remainers. If only they had won we wouldn't have to continue complaining about Brexit.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
There evidently is a military solution here; Ukraine 'winning' the war (*). And that is not as unlikely as some make out, given what has happened in the Donbass. Much would depend on what Putin's aims are - separating off a couple of regions would be much more winnable than trying to take the entirety of the country. He would want to avoid another Afghanistan or Chechnya.
Your entire attitude is defeatist, exactly the same as in Britain in the late 1930s. And we might not see Russian bombers flatten our homes, but we do see Russian agents killing innocents in the UK with poisons and nuclear materials.
Let's put it plainly: Putin is evil. He won't care much about economic and diplomatic pain, which can be reversed later when he wins. What he wants is power, and personally I don't think he wants to stop at just Ukraine. We have to take actions that say 'no more'.
And that's the problem.
(*) I put 'winning' in inverted commas because no-one will end up winning. There will be just more pain and heartache for millions of people.
Yes I am defeatist in relation to the so-called military angle. Putin has spent a decade and more undermining the very fabric of our society and those of our friends and allies. During the same period this country has decided that we don't need armed forces that are functionally capable any more.
So we're faced with a denuded military and an alliance that is too busy bickering with itself to put up the kind of united front that would be needed. But I keep coming back to my central point - the populations of NATO countries are not prepared to wage war against Russia over Ukraine.
So hard-nosed diplomacy is the only card we can play. OK Putin, you can invade, and you can almost certainly win. But the price of doing so is a new cold war. We stop buying your gas, we stop harbouring your money, we make you and your country a pariah with all that means for your own people. Is Ukraine really worth all that?
You appear to be missing two points:
* Putin's desire is not just over Ukraine. He essentially wants Russian control over many of the ex-Soviet states, including countries like Poland. * He will laugh at just hard-nosed diplomacy. All those decisions you mention can be reversed easily once he wins. What he does not want is a loss of the war and/or a loss of 'face'.
We are facing an evil. At what point do you say: "no more' ?
I expect I'm one of the bad left wing people who reflexively backs the wrong action because I don't like our government. Certainly I'm embarrassed that we have a government that seems focused on photo ops, profile raising and scoring points against some EU members. Equally I think we have a defence secretary who's doing a decent job as far as that's possible as part of this government. But overall I actually don't know enough to have an informed opinion of how or whether we should be intervening.
Let's say this is the point that we say "no more", accepting that Putin has an unacceptably expansionist policy and won't be satisfied without controlling a number of independent states including EU members. What does that oblige us to do? Who's with us? Will it work? What will it cost us, and will the world be safer or less safe afterwards?
The "Will it work?" question is the big one, and of course is unknowable in advance.
IMV we need a multi-pronged approach: *) Diplomatic moves to punish Russia if they attack. *) Further sanctions on Russia and individuals therewithin.
So far, I think we can call this the RP approach. However, none of these are permanent: Putin will know they can be reversed in days, and all he needs to do is split a few countries off.
So what else? *) Unequivocally say we support Ukraine and that Russia is the aggressor. *) Beef up support for Ukraine. Not boots on the ground, but weaponry, intel and supplies. *) Seriously beef up forces in other Eastern European states that Putin threatens. But I daresay Nick would see this as 'poking'. *) Do not recognise any pro-Russian government in any part of the Ukraine, even after supposedly 'fair' elections. Establish a Ukranian government-in-exile.
I daresay there are more things as well.
The last of these is a biggie, and a massive potential flashpoint, either deliberate or accidental.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And yet the SNP quaintly wants us/Scotland to abandon Trident, in a world where non-nuclear powers can be clearly bullied and menaced into subjugation
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
Alot of Russia's military expenditure is on bullshit - such as vast numbers of conscripts who can look pretty marching the goose-step, but are militarily useless. As Chechnya proved.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
It is mandated in a number of US states (e.g., Mass.) to be taught in high schools as an example of a genocide.
So, what you're saying is that several states in America have schooling systems run by retarded fanatics who don't have a clue what they're talking about?
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And yet the SNP quaintly wants us/Scotland to abandon Trident, in a world where non-nuclear powers can be clearly bullied and menaced into subjugation
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
A number of years ago, an American General was on a Canada TV program, debating against a Canadian opponent of missile defence.
She was banging on about how evil it was. How terrible. And how it would drag Canada in, since it would defend Canada whether they way wanted it on not.
The American General replied that the US wouldn't violate Canada's sovereignty - if they didn't want to be part of the missile defence system, the Keep Out Zone* would be configured to exclude Canadian territory.
Without missing a beat, the opponent lady switched to the nastiness of standing by while a neighbour was attacked, and planing on doing nothing.....
*In such systems, the computers calculate where the warheads are going. If they aren't going to hit bits of the map you care about (the Keep Out Zone), they ignore it.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And yet the SNP quaintly wants us/Scotland to abandon Trident, in a world where non-nuclear powers can be clearly bullied and menaced into subjugation
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
I don't support the SNP's policy on nuclear weapons. Anti-nuke opinion seems pretty commonplace in Scotland, but I wouldn't give them up unilaterally.
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
You have to remember Nick Palmer is a former communist who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He is instinctively anti-Western and sympathetic to those opposing the West.
You have to also remember Nick Palmer is also a former New Labour MP who supported Tony Blair and George W Bush when he voted for the Iraq War and Afganistan War after 9/11 and now supports Starmer's pro Nato stance on Putin. Nick is not anti western, just a party loyalist like me!
Nick, If you read this post from HY and decide to sue, I’m sure some on PB will have a whip round for you.
I agree. The idea we should be nice to one another should be strongly discouraged.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
It is mandated in a number of US states (e.g., Mass.) to be taught in high schools as an example of a genocide.
So, what you're saying is that several states in America have schooling systems run by retarded fanatics who don't have a clue what they're talking about?
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
Have they banned teaching about Tulsa - I recall that some "patriots" were arguing for that....
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
It's a fact that pretty well all of the territories sequentially occupied by Stalin and Hitler saw massacres perpetrated by some of the inhabitants of those territories.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
To be honest though, as I read through the link to 1943 Poet Laureate posted yesterday, I felt like I didn’t like Ukrainian nationalists. It wasn’t that they were fighting, there was no justification for the crime of ethnic cleansing 😕
Being very honest here, it had coloured my views when todays Ukraine nationalists came on the news afterwards. And I’m not even Polish.
If you look at the history of WWII, inhabitants of every country serially occupied by Stalin and Hitler committed appalling massacres.
It doesn’t begin to excuse the atrocities, but it suggests something that’s not particular to a given nation, or nationalist movement is going on.
It’s fair to say. But it is I am upset by reading about all of it done by all of them, especially 100K women and children tortured and murdered for ethic cleanse, and later generation of same Nationalists won’t call it out.
But we read them sequentially one by one.
Also interesting you quote post I almost immediately deleted, having reflected. I would now add though, sacking Eurovision singer for one visit to Crimea doesn’t sound too tolerant, from people regarding the land she visited and everyone in it as their own 😕
I don’t think anyone’s comfortable with it. And you’ll see other countries (and I think particularly the former communist satellites ?) having much the same difficulty in coming to terms with their wartime pasts. Latvia, for example.
Perhaps we’re not so wildly different in that respect when you consider our reluctance to deal with some of our past ?
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
It is mandated in a number of US states (e.g., Mass.) to be taught in high schools as an example of a genocide.
So, what you're saying is that several states in America have schooling systems run by retarded fanatics who don't have a clue what they're talking about?
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
Have they banned teaching about Tulsa - I recall that some "patriots" were arguing for that....
I have no idea. They've just said that we can't teach opinions in teaching history. Only facts.
Apparently unaware that professional historians spend much of their time considering what different opinions people have put forward based on those facts.
These are the idiots who came up with the new history a-level, which makes it unsurprising that it's such a bloody awful qualification and no preparation at all for degree level.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
I can’t let go of the fact some people still see it as a binary choice.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
I can’t let go of the fact some people still see it as a binary choice.
How stupid are they?
I like binary choices. You always get at least 10 options.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
It is mandated in a number of US states (e.g., Mass.) to be taught in high schools as an example of a genocide.
So, what you're saying is that several states in America have schooling systems run by retarded fanatics who don't have a clue what they're talking about?
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
Have they banned teaching about Tulsa - I recall that some "patriots" were arguing for that....
I have no idea. They've just said that we can't teach opinions in teaching history. Only facts.
Apparently unaware that professional historians spend much of their time considering what different opinions people have put forward based on those facts.
These are the idiots who came up with the new history a-level, which makes it unsurprising that it's such a bloody awful qualification and no preparation at all for degree level.
Time for my reforms to education.
- Launch the DfE into the Sun. - All children to placed in Zorb balls made from knife proof plastic, with inbuilt HEPA filters. - All schools to be provided with an Alvis Saracen, to be used by teachers as a safe space/playing car football with the Zorb balls......
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
The reaction of some of the left on here would be laughable if it was not horrible: "Of course Russia is behaving badly, but we should just let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge. And we should stop poking Russia by telling them not to invade. Instead we should just remain silent and tut-tut behind our hands."
I do wonder if some om here secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading ...
Who are you talking about???
Nick Palmer especially, a couple of others and, sadly, yourself - at least that's the way it reads.
And no, before anyone says, I do not want troops on the ground. But I do think that Russia grabbing (or trying to grab) substantial portions of Ukraine would be very bad, not just for Ukraine, but for neighbouring countries, Europe, and ourselves.
Russia (and prominent Russians) have had various sanctions placed on them for years. They haven't worked, or dissuaded them from taking evil paths. Threatening sanctions and their money alone probably will not work this time either. So we need to try something else.
Also remember that the UK has suffered uniquely from Putin's aggression in the Litvinenko and Salisbury cases.
You are being silly. "we should let them do what they want because Johnson is in charge" is preposterous - none of us are saying anything remotely close to that. And I "secretly quite like the idea of Russia invading"?
Really?
Some posts do seem to indicate that the fact Johnson is in charge is related to their view on Ukraine, yes.
And you obviously missed Nick Palmer's (ahem) excellent views on how we were causing problems by 'poking' Russia.
As for your own views: I did say sadly. But as I detail above, it would not deter Russian aggression. They should be part of a wider package, but that alone would do nothing. You're a sensible chap; you know that. So why are you proposing something that won't work?
Because there is no military solution here. If Putin wants to invade he will invade - unless NATO is prepared to engage them militarily. And we simply are not. I've been saying this for weeks - the notion that our collected sabre-rattling would have us potentially go to war with Russia over Ukraine is laughable.
Is Britain prepared to see Russian bombers flatten our homes because Putin wants bits of Ukraine? Is Germany? France? And thats just a conventional war before some idiot decides we need to threaten worse.
So the collected huffing and puffing is counter-productive. There is no military solution here so all we can offer is economic and diplomatic pain. That should have been our focus - money, assets and gas. Again, it isn't a Johnson-specific criticism as he isn't the only one at it and his predecessors would have done the same. What is Johnson-specific is our lack of diplomatic umph post Brexit and Kermit the Frog, and our lack of nous doing stupid like sending the cosplay Queen to Moscow to embarrass us further.
As far as I can tell, the appeasers are unwilling to even inflict the necessary pain to Russian access to SWIFT and gas exports.
And once again, repeatedly, the UK, US and others has stated that they will not intervene with direct military action.
They will send military aid, and will enforce sanctions against Russia if it invades.
It seems to upset some people that we aren't going to go to war.
Yes. It does. But shouldn’t it? We are building up only to stop overspill. After all the talk of valuing sovereignty, self determination, the danger of letting bullies get away with anything - we will be just millimetres away on map watching - watching sovereignty torn to shreds, self determination chopped up with blood everywhere.
Politically if Putin goes in, and NATO forces so close and watching, and the voters of Britain and USA watching their news, like watching Ukrainian bull slaughtered in bullfight. it’s an utter electoral disaster for Boris and Biden. People will never understand it.
That’s why people already upset?
Well, it's the Ukrainians choice to defend their country.
We should support it.
I don't think there is any taste for war with Russia over this. Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though.
“ Plenty for the Ukrainians giving Putin a bloody nose with our weapons, though. “
That’s the point Malmsy, at what expense? If ultimately that Ukraine government, and their dream of joining EU and NATO for more wealth and living standards and security chopped down like that bull in the bull ring.
Whilst we stood by. Watching. Don’t underestimate how utterly finished and discredited for ever Boris and Biden will be if Putin goes in, and Ukraine loses lives, leaders and it’s dream.
BIG BUT IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS is it really risking world war three to promise air support, no fly zone and put troops on ground - or is that merely what needed for a workable deterrent, that works by saying to ‘Putin, no, not this time, fuck off
I think you overestimate how much Ukraine defeated by Russia will be seen as a defeat for the Western powers.
The only workable deterrent would be for the Ukrainians to have kept their nuclear weapons.
Something that every country with a cooling pond full of old fuel rods is thinking about now.
Yes, this situation is a deterrent against non-proliferation for sure. Even more so if Putin does actually decide to invade even more of Ukraine than he already has. I don't want a world where 50 countries have nukes, which is why it's incumbent on those of us to help defend those countries that don't, if asked.
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers: 1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or 2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And yet the SNP quaintly wants us/Scotland to abandon Trident, in a world where non-nuclear powers can be clearly bullied and menaced into subjugation
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
I don't support the SNP's policy on nuclear weapons. Anti-nuke opinion seems pretty commonplace in Scotland, but I wouldn't give them up unilaterally.
The SNP's anti-nuke stance is going to come under increasing scrutiny. It is no longer tenable, let alone coherent
Unless they literally do intend to ask America to abandon any nuclear umbrella, and leave Scotland undefended
As that Ukrainian general ruefully said: "Whatever you do, don't give up your missiles"
"Veterans of Kyiv rue the day they gave up their nuclear arsenal
"They once housed weapons with the power to destroy America many times over. Now, as Russian forces mass on the frontier, they are empty. The general who had his finger on the button warns: Don’t give up your missiles"
“I knew deep in my soul that we should never have given them away,” he said, caressing vestiges of machinery that could have destroyed America many times over, then turning to point at obsolete maps of Ukraine scattered with red flags marking nuclear missile silos. “If we still had our nuclear weapons now, we would have our respect and security, and be free of Russian aggression.”
Major General Mykola Filatov, formerly commander of the 46th Missile Division, is not alone in his sorrow.
As Ukraine braces itself against building Russian military pressure and potential invasion, the loss of the country’s nuclear arsenal is rued across the nation, and further afield too."
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
It is mandated in a number of US states (e.g., Mass.) to be taught in high schools as an example of a genocide.
So, what you're saying is that several states in America have schooling systems run by retarded fanatics who don't have a clue what they're talking about?
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
Have they banned teaching about Tulsa - I recall that some "patriots" were arguing for that....
I have no idea. They've just said that we can't teach opinions in teaching history. Only facts.
Apparently unaware that professional historians spend much of their time considering what different opinions people have put forward based on those facts.
These are the idiots who came up with the new history a-level, which makes it unsurprising that it's such a bloody awful qualification and no preparation at all for degree level.
Surely you can still enthuse your students with history but in the context of Boris Johnson's daring-do.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
I can’t let go of the fact some people still see it as a binary choice.
How stupid are they?
I like binary choices. You always get at least 10 options.
I can’t agree with that Farooq.
Besides. I’ve had enough playing Devils Advocate today. I’m going back to being an Angel I’ve got all my likes, off topic and spam stats up, so I have clearly been bloody brilliant at generating activity on the site. 😇
I’ve had far too much to drink this PB Drink Tank Thursday.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
The Brits don't like it?
Nor do professional historians.
It would involve suggesting the British and Japanese collaborated to cause widespread death and destruction across a large swathe of south east Asia while simultaneously fighting a war. Which seems to anyone who isn't a raging fanatic a little improbable. Such claims are for political reasons only. I would point out that not even Ho Chi Minh accused the Japanese of genocide over the Vietnamese famine that happened a year later from exactly the same causes.
One thing I do agree with @YBarddCwsc on is that using the word 'genocide' loosely, whether that's by mad xenophobes in America or Nodi's outriders in India, does cheapen it and hide the worst excesses where it is appropriate. A genocide is, as defined by the UN:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Neither the Irish or the Bengal famines fall into that category. There was no 'intent to destroy' albeit there was appalling negligence once the catastrophe began to unfold which may, in practice, have had a not dissimilar effect.
In the case of Ukraine, however, the starvation was a deliberate act of policy designed to exterminate a large number of potential opponents based on their national grouping by depriving them of food. Hard to see how that doesn't meet the definition. And anyone who thinks it doesn't clearly doesn't understand the subject and should probably keep off it.
Anyway, I have work tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
I am trying to remember the name of Ghanian politician who noted that when the British ran the country they sent a bunch of white men, to ride round on horses telling people what to do.
Since independence, there are 10x as many white men, riding round in shiny 4x4s, from NGOs, still trying to tell him what to do.
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
I've seen mention of both the The Great Famine and The Bengal Famine in recent weeks. Indeed, I even referenced The Bengal Famine myself in another context. I am personally convinced Britain's guilt in these two affairs. But as someone else has pointed out, this is pure whataboutery. So what that Britain has wronged people in the past? That does not prevent anyone talking about Russian aggression. I shouldn't have to avow my contempt for the decisions of long-dead British imperialists before speaking about Russian imperialism.
My point is this.
I am asking why is the Ukrainian Famine designated a Genocide?
But. famines caused by the British are not referred to as Genocides.
The British didn't set out to cause either the potato famine or the Bengal famine. They were caused by a parasite and a mix of wartime disruption and bad weather, respectively.* The British could - and should - have done more to mitigate them, but they did not cause them.
The Holdomar was a deliberate and systematic attempt to starve a potentially rebellious population into submission by wantonly destroying their agricultural systems. In which it was successful in the short term, at the cost of causing a burning and enduring hatred of the Moscow government that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis.
If you can't see that that is materially different, then I am genuinely surprised.
*It is worth remembering that the famine was even more severe in Japanese occupied areas. Around a quarter of the population of Vietnam died of famine in the same period.
But ... of course it is called the Irish Genocide.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
The use of the term 'genocide' in the context of the Holodomor is widespread among historians. I would instance Westwood, Macauley, McCauley, and Service without even bothering to search hard in my mind. Even Hobsbawm, an absolutely unrepentant apologist for almost all of Stalin's crimes, couldn't excuse this one and was willing to call it a genocide. The only reason Nove doesn't call it that is because he was interested in the economic not the demographic catastrophe it caused. It has also spilled over into historiography on other similar actions, e.g. in Ditoller's Mao's Great Famine. It is definitely part of 'sensible historical discourse.'
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
The Brits don't like it?
Nor do professional historians.
It would involve suggesting the British and Japanese collaborated to cause widespread death and destruction across a large swathe of south east Asia while simultaneously fighting a war. Which seems to anyone who isn't a raging fanatic a little improbable. Such claims are for political reasons only. I would point out that not even Ho Chi Minh accused the Japanese of genocide over the Vietnamese famine that happened a year later from exactly the same causes.
One thing I do agree with @YBarddCwsc on is that using the word 'genocide' loosely, whether that's by mad xenophobes in America or Nodi's outriders in India, does cheapen it and hide the worst excesses where it is appropriate. A genocide is, as defined by the UN:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Neither the Irish or the Bengal famines fall into that category. There was no 'intent to destroy' albeit there was appalling negligence once the catastrophe began to unfold which may, in practice, have had a not dissimilar effect.
In the case of Ukraine, however, the starvation was a deliberate act of policy designed to exterminate a large number of potential opponents based on their national grouping by depriving them of food. Hard to see how that doesn't meet the definition. And anyone who thinks it doesn't clearly doesn't understand the subject and should probably keep off it.
Anyway, I have work tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
I am trying to remember the name of Ghanian politician who noted that when the British ran the country they sent a bunch of white men, to ride round on horses telling people what to do.
Since independence, there are 10x as many white men, riding round in shiny 4x4s, from NGOs, still trying to tell him what to do.
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
You've had a boring day, then
Some of us have to work for a living.
My report is coming along very nicely, thank you very much. Boss is suitably impressed.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
Of course
The interesting aspect is their psychological need to even DO this. More than five years later
I think we could learn a lot about our politicians if they had to simply list their three favourite things on their posters. Very quickly, in order to differentiate, they'd have to get more creative that just putting things like Freedom on there (or in this case Jesus, Guns and Babies).
I'd put:
Electoral reforms Role playing games Terry Pratchett novels
Plymouth is forecast to reach 91 mph winds tomorrow, the highest I've found so far.
Bracing.
Met Office reckon 66 mph in suburban Ilford tomorrow, but the Beeb website says only 52 mph. Can't both be right!
Any ap is merely pulling numbers from a weather model, with no moderation by human hands. The met and the beeb no longer use the same models for their apps so no surprise they differ on a thing like this.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
Of course
The interesting aspect is their psychological need to even DO this. More than five years later
Brexit Reverberates
Even my wife said they are not still going on about this are they?
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Yes it is a spring tide in Llandudno tomorrow at 12 noon, the time the storm is expected to be at its peak
I have not seen flood warnings for Llandudno Town centre in all my 57 years living here
Some people think Donald Trump will get convicted at some point - so far they've not even reached the point of managing to question him about in just one example of a long running case.
@Leon complaining about people here banging on about Brexit while telling us of a vote in the European parliament that I'm pretty certain precisely zero people on this site knew or cared about is for me a highlight of the day. .
... especially since said vote has precisely zero practical effect.
Of course
The interesting aspect is their psychological need to even DO this. More than five years later
Mr. Farooq, aye, it'd be much better with fewer appointees and more hereditaries.
As part of my program as unDictator of Britain, I intend to replace the Lords with the House of Bastards.
They will be selected from the 100 closest illegitimate descendants of Charles II, as determined by genetic science.
Could we not be a bit European and have descendants of bastards from there? Then I have a chance ...... 🙏
He was 30 when he took up the throne and came over from the continent - seems likely he will have left a few bastards behind in France and the modern Netherlands, and from there the spread should be wide enough to encompass the rest.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Yes it is a spring tide in Llandudno tomorrow at 12 noon, the time the storm is expected to be at its peak
I have not seen flood warnings for Llandudno Town centre in all my 57 years living here
Stay safe!
Always have fond memories of the Great Orme Tramway (visited in 2017).
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
Some people think Donald Trump will get convicted at some point - so far they've not even reached the point of managing to question him about in just one example of a long running case.
Even if he is there is nothing in the US constitution to stop a convicted criminal becoming President. Though you would expect voters to vote against him in 2024 if he is
Meanwhile where is @BartholomewRoberts these days. Very interested to read his higher wages and higher prices and higher wages is a good thing posts. .
You’ll have noted that there was strong growth in real wages in 2021 being confirmed earlier this week? The increase in inflation since the beginning of the year has left wages behind temporarily but hopefully only for a few months.
"hopefully" indeed. But where does the cycle end? Costs and therefore prices rise so wages rise and costs and prices rise and wages rise.
This is good in your opinion? What are you some kind of pre-Thatcher era Union leader?
The main cause of inflation now is that we put the cost of the pandemic on the QE tab 2 years ago. We have a bit of that to work through but my hope is that increasing wages will drive increased investment to boost productivity and the general standard of living.
Blimey. You think that is going to happen. Now. When everyone is battered and businesses are having to pay more to get hitherto plentiful labour and raise prices just to stand still.
You think amidst this there will be a boost to increase productivity and the general standard of living.
At present price growth is outstripping wage growth. Once inflation takes hold then it is very difficult to get it out of the system. Better economists than you or I (and much better ones than @BartholomewRoberts) are praying that it will work its way through once energy price rises have worked their way through, etc. .
The main problem since 2008 has been deflation not inflation. The price of oil fell 5% yesterday and gas even more. No doubt they will be back up again today given the latest shenanigans but there is a big war premium in the price right now.
Yes of course, those rises are volatile and likely temporary. But if wages continue to go up then that will mean higher prices which leads to higher wages and that is not temporary; inflation becomes permanent or embedded and then we have a problem. And policy responses are equally problematic.
I got a notification that I was tagged in this by @TOPPING . Sorry, I'm not online as much as I used to be anymore as I'm quite busy IRL so not spending as much time here.
Wages going up is a good thing, so long as the wages are going up because of demand for the labour. Inflation for inflation's sake is a bad thing of course, but then wages aren't rising in real terms if that's all it is. Real wages rises are a good thing and David is entirely right that rising real wages leads to an increase in investment for productivity and it is productivity growth that makes us all better off.
What we're seeing now is really still very moderate inflation. We're not talking Zimbabwean thousands of percent inflation, we're talking about inflation of ~5.5% as the highest inflation in thirty years. Yet as I've pointed out before house price inflation has averaged 6.2% for the first two decades of this century.
So people are losing their minds and all perspective from inflation that is below inflation that we've been used to in recent decades. Its just that now prices are going up on things homeowners need to pay for and not just everyone else instead of them.
This is true, but like most things needs to be mildly caveated:
(1) Inflation is - fundamentally - a response to demand outstripping supply. To bring them back into balance, wages increase, which both brings people back into the workforce, and demand falls. We should be keener on the first that than the second, and it's important the policy response is calibrated to that.
(2) Rising wages will mean rising prices. Wage costs - whether in your local grocery store, or Amazon or Macdonalds - are passed on, or businesses go out of business. This is fine for those benefiting from higher wages, but will be less fun for those on fixed incomes.
(3) So far, the willingness of Central Banks to use interest rates to counter inflation has been minimal. It is generally considered (not without merit) that worldwide labour shortages are mostly transitory in nature as Covid recedes, and the spike in commodity prices is also likely to recede as drilling returns in the US. However, it is entirely possible that that attitude changes - especially if rising inflation means increased current account deficits.
I agree with pretty much all of that but I'll say a couple of things.
(1) Raising National Insurance was about the very worst possible thing to do to encourage the former.
(2) Yes wage rises feed into prices, but most of the price rise is due to commodity prices more than wage rises as it stands. Despite the recent rise in wages. As for "fixed incomes" those on "fixed incomes" tend to be those who are not working for a living, those who are working for a living have pay reviews to adjust their incomes as time goes on so the income may be fixed in the very short term but not over a medium term.
In recent decades far too much benefit has been accrued to those who are not working, over the backs of those who actually are working - and I left the Tories because they made this problem even worse by lifting National Insurance.
If a few years of moderate inflation sees those who are working for a living benefit to the detriment of those who are not working for a living, then I would see that as a good thing and not a problem.
(3) I'm not convinced interest rates will have as much impact on prices as it used to anyway. The amount of people who have a mortgage now is down to about 1/4 of the adult population - the elderly are generally living mortgage-free and the young generally can't afford to buy, so an interest rate change doesn't swiftly directly affect three quarters of the population now. That's without considering that many of those with a mortgage will have the rate fixed.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
My laptop's battery is for shit, so I'm hoping for a powercut so I can just laze about all day instead of working.
Apparently there is a more obscure Georgia in the USA. It's the sort of place where people shag their relatives. Sakartvelo, on the other hand, is well cool.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
My laptop's battery is for shit, so I'm hoping for a powercut so I can just laze about all day instead of working.
Your router would be out, so even if your laptop is on you couldn't get online. We had power cuts in November here for several days. Even the mobile mast was out, so there was no internet possible at all.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
My laptop's battery is for shit, so I'm hoping for a powercut so I can just laze about all day instead of working.
Your router would be out, so even if your laptop is on you couldn't get online. We had power cuts in November here for several days. Even the mobile mast was out, so there was no internet possible at all.
All evidence to the contrary I actually spend quite a bit of time reading, and not purely online! Read a short book just this evening (Shadows of Athens as it happens). Need the laptop dead as can do plenty of work without the internet, don't need the distraction.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
Oh how Zephyrus laughed as he read Rottenboroughs post.
Incidentally, did you know the moon pulls all water on earth, even inside our watery bodies?
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
storm is hitting near high tide and it's a spring tide
Glad I'm not going anywhere tomorrow beyond the duvet and the sofa.
My laptop's battery is for shit, so I'm hoping for a powercut so I can just laze about all day instead of working.
Your router would be out, so even if your laptop is on you couldn't get online. We had power cuts in November here for several days. Even the mobile mast was out, so there was no internet possible at all.
All evidence to the contrary I actually spend quite a bit of time reading, and not purely online! Read a short book just this evening (Shadows of Athens as it happens).
But I mean for work. When our power went out it would have stopped me working completely, even though my laptop was fully charged. Sadly it happened on Friday evening and was back on for Monday morning. Bastards.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
Dude, you need a holiday.
Thanks! I was looking for an excuse as I only just got over my jet lag from Sri Lanka
Anyone watch the Real Hunt for Red October on SKY History? If true, the story of K-129 is the biggest single story of the twentieth century - because a rogue group of Soviets tried to engineer a nuclear war between the US and China that would have seen us entering the twenty-first century with both countries as nuked wastelands.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
Dude, you need a holiday.
Thanks! I was looking for an excuse as I only just got over my jet lag from Sri Lanka
The Times front page has Boris in the cockpit of a typhoon
How can he fit in a typhoon cockpit
Foolish to be having photos with military hardware if you then decide to watch Ukraine get invaded and not actually use it. I'd steer clear of silly military photo ops completely if I were him.
Anyone watch the Real Hunt for Red October on SKY History? If true, the story of K-129 is the biggest single story of the twentieth century - because a rogue group of Soviets tried to engineer a nuclear war between the US and China that would have seen us entering the twenty-first century with both countries as nuked wastelands.
And Russia the remaining super power.
I doubt a nuclear holocaust would have seen the USSR remaining. The moment nukes started flying, they'd have flown at Moscow etc too.
Just had a list of the areas and roads that will be inundated from the sea tomorrow and it is going to affect large areas around us with lots of flooding and danger
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
I'm disappointed that you haven't managed to find a way of blaming Drakeford for this drastic lockdown.
The Times front page has Boris in the cockpit of a typhoon
How can he fit in a typhoon cockpit
Foolish to be having photos with military hardware if you then decide to watch Ukraine get invaded and not actually use it. I'd steer clear of silly military photo ops completely if I were him.
That would be like trying to stop a cat licking its own arsehole.
How can more votes be anything other than more democracy?
Absolutely, as long as Leave also gets a second vote, if we so happen to vote Remain in the first vote, on the basis that Remainers are wankers, or something
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
This craic is so dreary. Christ.
Don't blame me, blame the MEPs at Strasbourg. They were the ones that had a vote today condemning Brexit and Brexit voters. They are the ones who Can't Let Go
Dude, you need a holiday.
Thanks! I was looking for an excuse as I only just got over my jet lag from Sri Lanka
Hm. Where next? I have a yearning for Turkey
Skegness. I thought you were a patriot.
Love the British coast, me. Generally
But the temptation of Karahan Tepe is too much. Look what they found in the last few days. It is incredible
Plymouth is forecast to reach 91 mph winds tomorrow, the highest I've found so far.
Bracing.
Met Office reckon 66 mph in suburban Ilford tomorrow, but the Beeb website says only 52 mph. Can't both be right!
Any ap is merely pulling numbers from a weather model, with no moderation by human hands. The met and the beeb no longer use the same models for their apps so no surprise they differ on a thing like this.
My Dad swears he gets more accurate forecasts for Yorkshire from Norway.
Comments
As a consequence of having to work for a living, my first opportunity to join the discussion.
On topic, there won't be anything formal between Labour and the LDs at the next GE - there may well be some "understandings" or "campaigns of convenience" but the electoral arithmetic precludes the need for anything formal. Are the LDs going to win in Bury - will Labour win in Guildford?
IF the LDs emerge from the sea of electoral hazard with 30-35 MPs (possible but still a tall order) and the Conservative majority has been broken, what then? The truth is the LDs will still be the fourth largest group with the SNP still likely to be a significant group in the next Parliament.
How could it work? There wouldn't be a formal coalition on the 2010-15 or even a "Lib-Lab pact" on the 1977-78 model. Both experiences were chastening for the Liberals and then the LDs. If I were advising Davey, I'd suggest supping with the Devil (whether red or blue) requires a long spoon and, beyond C&S, I would look at each bit of proposed legislation on its merits. That might encourage Labour to set up an informal process of consulting the SNP, LDs and others to see if there was a majority for any piece of legislation. The dull and worthy stuff would be uncontentious but anything too radical would be pushed back.
The political advantage for the LDs and SNP is it allows them to sit on the Opposition benches and doesn't gift the monopoly of opposition to the Conservatives (as we're seeing in Italy and Germany that can be hugely electorally advantageous).
Whether Davey can then sell the notion of "responsible Opposition" - not just opposing for the sake of it and supporting sensible legislation - is the next question.
I mean, the fact that Putin uses the literal, real Russian Nazi* thugs to beat up the opposition might be a bit of a clue.
*People with swastika tattoos.
No, but it won't get that far. Yet. But let's make it clear: the person threatening WW3 in this case is Russia, not us.
Let me ask you a question in return: given Putin's aggression, including on our own shores, at what point do you think it would be valid to risk it? When he has taken Ukraine? Poland? Romania? All the ex-Soviet states? When tens of millions of people are subjected to the same lack of freedoms and press censorship as modern Russia?
Your route is more likely to end in a wider conflict and WW3, as Russia under an evil leader will only grow stronger. He should have been stopped seven or eight years ago. He needs stopping now. Having to stop him in five or ten years will be much, much harder if he wins in Ukraine.
But not normally by the British ... or the Irish. It is often so-called by Irish-Americans.
The use of the word "Genocide" often betrays the fact that no sensible historical discourse can now take place.
Because the use of "Genocide" is almost always an emotional appeal to further hatred.
And that is my objection to using it in this Ukrainian context.
However, if it is going to be used, let's talk about the Irish Genocide or Bengal Genocide as well.
Let us at least be consistent in our emotional appeals to hatred ... if we cannot desist from them.
Somehow I doubt the European Parliament will be encouraging "more democracy" in THAT direction
I really don't see more than two options for non-nuclear powers:
1. We rely on security guarantees from better armed countries, or
2. We take out our own insurance policy
Well, I guess:
3. Just hope
And you’ll see other countries (and I think particularly the former communist satellites ?) having much the same difficulty in coming to terms with their wartime pasts. Latvia, for example.
Perhaps we’re not so wildly different in that respect when you consider our reluctance to deal with some of our past ?
We are 4th or 5th by these tables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Still impressive, and also impressive how relatively pathetic our armed forces are, given these mighty sums of money. Russia really does do a lot more with a lot less. We need to wise up and focus. Cyber, drones, AI, robots, special forces, that is the future of warfare, and you can achieve great things if you get it right
The era of tanks and aircraft carriers is nearly behind us, despite this late revival by Putin
One extra advantage of this approach, is that other parties would have to take a look at what Lib Dem stand for before making up their own minds - and so would the members of the public - and even, perhaps, the media.
Strangely enough, this was how the Lib-Lab pact worked in practice in the 1970s. We had a good sensible government for several months before the extremists on the far left wrecked everything, and Thatcher finished it all off.
Boris and Truss have sat down with the Ukraine leaders this week. All the Ukraine government will have for comfort whilst lying in their graves will be some new sanctions on the Russian people for a while, till it all blows over. The last round of sanctions didn’t work, is that ever discussed? Igor the McMafia banned? Only for as long as it takes to transfer assets to family member and pick up a fake passport - the West was dealing with them again!
Where’s the resolve to put words into action?
You might underestimate, after all the anti Putin propaganda and NATO build up in the region, how watching Ukraine defeated by Putin is going to colour UK and US voters toward Boris, Truss and Biden.
I have heard the Bengal Famine referred to as a genocide, but only by political fanatics. Not by historians.
I have never heard the Irish Potato Famine so called, although I will take your word for it you have.
But the cases are very clearly different. The latter two were not deliberate acts of policy. The first one was. And it was aimed very clearly at a particular group of people - the supporters of the Ukrainian republic and the White armies from the Civil War. So it is not in any way inconsistent to suggest that the first is a genocide and the others are not. Nor is it hate speech.
The Russians don't like it, just as the Turks don't like hearing about the Armenian genocide. But it's a perfectly reasonable way for the Ukrainians to describe it.
IMV we need a multi-pronged approach:
*) Diplomatic moves to punish Russia if they attack.
*) Further sanctions on Russia and individuals therewithin.
So far, I think we can call this the RP approach. However, none of these are permanent: Putin will know they can be reversed in days, and all he needs to do is split a few countries off.
So what else?
*) Unequivocally say we support Ukraine and that Russia is the aggressor.
*) Beef up support for Ukraine. Not boots on the ground, but weaponry, intel and supplies.
*) Seriously beef up forces in other Eastern European states that Putin threatens. But I daresay Nick would see this as 'poking'.
*) Do not recognise any pro-Russian government in any part of the Ukraine, even after supposedly 'fair' elections. Establish a Ukranian government-in-exile.
I daresay there are more things as well.
The last of these is a biggie, and a massive potential flashpoint, either deliberate or accidental.
No one is invading North Korea, I notice
Incidentally, re the SNP policy on nukes, are they also asking America to remove its NATO nuclear umbrella over Scotland? Or is the SNP's pose just putrid hypocrisy, and they still want nuke protection, but they want to have the moral virtue of being pro-disarmament without the awkward consequences of being unarmed?
Asking for a friendly co-nation, south of Coldstream
The useful Russian armed forces are much smaller.
Well, that's hardly news. I mean, lots of them haven't quite got their heads round evolution yet.
Not that we can talk in light of this morning's bizarre announcement from the drunken lunatics at the DfE that it's illegal to teach history in this country.
She was banging on about how evil it was. How terrible. And how it would drag Canada in, since it would defend Canada whether they way wanted it on not.
The American General replied that the US wouldn't violate Canada's sovereignty - if they didn't want to be part of the missile defence system, the Keep Out Zone* would be configured to exclude Canadian territory.
Without missing a beat, the opponent lady switched to the nastiness of standing by while a neighbour was attacked, and planing on doing nothing.....
*In such systems, the computers calculate where the warheads are going. If they aren't going to hit bits of the map you care about (the Keep Out Zone), they ignore it.
Anti-nuke opinion seems pretty commonplace in Scotland, but I wouldn't give them up unilaterally.
Apparently unaware that professional historians spend much of their time considering what different opinions people have put forward based on those facts.
These are the idiots who came up with the new history a-level, which makes it unsurprising that it's such a bloody awful qualification and no preparation at all for degree level.
How stupid are they?
American politics is deeply weird… https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1494387835180363779/photo/1
- Launch the DfE into the Sun.
- All children to placed in Zorb balls made from knife proof plastic, with inbuilt HEPA filters.
- All schools to be provided with an Alvis Saracen, to be used by teachers as a safe space/playing car football with the Zorb balls......
Unless they literally do intend to ask America to abandon any nuclear umbrella, and leave Scotland undefended
As that Ukrainian general ruefully said: "Whatever you do, don't give up your missiles"
"Veterans of Kyiv rue the day they gave up their nuclear arsenal
"They once housed weapons with the power to destroy America many times over. Now, as Russian forces mass on the frontier, they are empty. The general who had his finger on the button warns: Don’t give up your missiles"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/step-into-the-twilight-world-of-ukraines-forgotten-nuclear-silos-ljt9g3dh8
“I knew deep in my soul that we should never have given them away,” he said, caressing vestiges of machinery that could have destroyed America many times over, then turning to point at obsolete maps of Ukraine scattered with red flags marking nuclear missile silos. “If we still had our nuclear weapons now, we would have our respect and security, and be free of Russian aggression.”
Major General Mykola Filatov, formerly commander of the 46th Missile Division, is not alone in his sorrow.
As Ukraine braces itself against building Russian military pressure and potential invasion, the loss of the country’s nuclear arsenal is rued across the nation, and further afield too."
Besides. I’ve had enough playing Devils Advocate today. I’m going back to being an Angel
I’ve got all my likes, off topic and spam stats up, so I have clearly been bloody brilliant at generating activity on the site. 😇
I’ve had far too much to drink this PB Drink Tank Thursday.
Christ! Is that all the time is?
Ibis chauve
@Jesuislibis
·
2h
Replying to
@Number10cat
"Jesus guns babies" is not the Christian message she thinks it is.
The value of punctuation.
It would involve suggesting the British and Japanese collaborated to cause widespread death and destruction across a large swathe of south east Asia while simultaneously fighting a war. Which seems to anyone who isn't a raging fanatic a little improbable. Such claims are for political reasons only. I would point out that not even Ho Chi Minh accused the Japanese of genocide over the Vietnamese famine that happened a year later from exactly the same causes.
One thing I do agree with @YBarddCwsc on is that using the word 'genocide' loosely, whether that's by mad xenophobes in America or Nodi's outriders in India, does cheapen it and hide the worst excesses where it is appropriate. A genocide is, as defined by the UN:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Neither the Irish or the Bengal famines fall into that category. There was no 'intent to destroy' albeit there was appalling negligence once the catastrophe began to unfold which may, in practice, have had a not dissimilar effect.
In the case of Ukraine, however, the starvation was a deliberate act of policy designed to exterminate a large number of potential opponents based on their national grouping by depriving them of food. Hard to see how that doesn't meet the definition. And anyone who thinks it doesn't clearly doesn't understand the subject and should probably keep off it.
Anyway, I have work tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
Since independence, there are 10x as many white men, riding round in shiny 4x4s, from NGOs, still trying to tell him what to do.
.
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/religious-tradition/by/state/
My report is coming along very nicely, thank you very much. Boss is suitably impressed.
All schools and rail services closed and looks as if everyone is staying inside tomorrow
We have had many storms but I cannot recall so many specific locations under direct threat as this
The interesting aspect is their psychological need to even DO this. More than five years later
Brexit Reverberates
83.4% of Georgians are Orthodox
10.7% Muslim
2.9% Armenian Apostolic
0.5% Catholic
2.5% others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Religion
I'd put:
Electoral reforms
Role playing games
Terry Pratchett novels
I'd get a few votes.
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/religious-tradition/by/state/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/how-religious-is-your-state/?state=alabama
I have not seen flood warnings for Llandudno Town centre in all my 57 years living here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60425457
Always have fond memories of the Great Orme Tramway (visited in 2017).
(1) Raising National Insurance was about the very worst possible thing to do to encourage the former.
(2) Yes wage rises feed into prices, but most of the price rise is due to commodity prices more than wage rises as it stands. Despite the recent rise in wages. As for "fixed incomes" those on "fixed incomes" tend to be those who are not working for a living, those who are working for a living have pay reviews to adjust their incomes as time goes on so the income may be fixed in the very short term but not over a medium term.
In recent decades far too much benefit has been accrued to those who are not working, over the backs of those who actually are working - and I left the Tories because they made this problem even worse by lifting National Insurance.
If a few years of moderate inflation sees those who are working for a living benefit to the detriment of those who are not working for a living, then I would see that as a good thing and not a problem.
(3) I'm not convinced interest rates will have as much impact on prices as it used to anyway. The amount of people who have a mortgage now is down to about 1/4 of the adult population - the elderly are generally living mortgage-free and the young generally can't afford to buy, so an interest rate change doesn't swiftly directly affect three quarters of the population now. That's without considering that many of those with a mortgage will have the rate fixed.
We had power cuts in November here for several days. Even the mobile mast was out, so there was no internet possible at all.
Just looked at this one, high altitude, also avoiding Belarus.. https://www.flightradar24.com/MFINE/2ada8d7f
Incidentally, did you know the moon pulls all water on earth, even inside our watery bodies?
How can he fit in a typhoon cockpit
Hm. Where next? I have a yearning for Turkey
And Russia the remaining super power.
But the temptation of Karahan Tepe is too much. Look what they found in the last few days. It is incredible
https://www.yr.no/nb/værvarsel/daglig-tabell/2-7299553/Storbritannia/England/North Yorkshire/Farndale West
For Freshwater, just along the coast, the BBC weather page has a truly remarkable (and scary) wind speed forecast of 115 mph!
https://ordlig.se