Russia is now allegedly evacuating citizens from the Donetsk area in light of an imminent Ukrainian attack. Because, of course, that is what you do when your opponent has forces nearly 2x your entire army situated in a high state of readiness on your borders. When better to attacK?
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
Another aspect of this is the question of what the Tories most want. Which would be extended well publicised party in fighting followed by litigation regardless of its outcome. The opportunity for us to see Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott daily trashing moderates while lawyers fight would be meat and drink to the Mail.
There are reasons why a Tory majority is still the front runner with the bookies.
BTW At the end of the next parliament Corbyn would be 80.
I will be 80 at the beginning of the next Parliament !!!!!
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
It will for some but 181 have to vote him out which seems high at present
You seem to be softening your resolve over Partygate. I suspect you are not alone, and as the noise dies down more Con. MPs will decide to give Big Dog a second (umpteenth) chance.
Now is his time to shine as the great Churchillian statesman. Expect more photo opportunities in fast jets.
I am not softening on Boris one bit but reflecting the position as I see it
I really wish he was not leading the country right now but he is and I do not see a move against him before may
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
We already turned a blind eye once before, it hasn't prevent further action.
And another classic putinist diversionary argument at the end too. Yes, the UK is not morally perfect, but that all are sinners does not make all sins equal, nor does it prevent one sinner from accurately pointing out another sinner taking even worse action. It's perfectly possible to take the moral high ground without being faultless.
I am a pragmatist, we and others work with horrible regimes all over the planet because that is life. But equivocating about a possible invasion and suggesting that is equivalent to being hypocrites about money is not pragmatism unless someone is a member of the Stop the War coalition.
An interesting piece @Quincel . From what I see on social media the Jeremy is lauded as the King who was Cheated. The man who has always been right, who has been defamed by the right and who must pre preserved from attack at all costs.
As so many other issues rage it has been instructive watching left intellectuals like Ricky Dicky Burgon launching yet another round of reinstate the Jeremy. If you are winners lik Pidcock, Webbe, Burgon etc then the removal of the Jeremy is the final crime.
There is no chance that an apology is coming, so no chance of His reinstatement under the whip, which means one of three things happens. He graciously retires thus solving the problem. He runs as an independent and takes all the remaining hardened trots with him, or he runs under a different banner with the same result.
If he runs either as an independent or under Peace & Justice / TUSC / Left Unity / Scab Action or whatever, he will lose. If nothing else because his friends will be bussed in from around the country to canvas, in that finger jabbing in the face argumentative style that is so effective.
Final point. Fun as it would be to see Sultana et al exit the Labour Party I can't see them doing so.
I don't know. Remember that Livingstone ran as an Independent and beat Dobson in a London-wide election. If Corbyn resigns and fights a by-election I reckon he'd win. In a GE, not so much. You're right however that he'd be doomed if he adopts a hard left banner; his best bet is to run as the 'wronged independent' and trade on his long local track record. Labour may struggle to find a credible local candidate willing to run against him, and if they parachute some student politician in, they could be in trouble.
I agree, I think he’d walk it especially if some Blairite SPAD type is parachuted in. The Zarah Sultana’s of the world would have no chance at all under their own steam but labour needs to be a broad church and Zarah Sultana should be just as at home in the movement as Wes Streeting
I note that the document linked for the detail is a set of proposals on the conference agenda, rather than the actual Labour Party Rule Book (which I don't have the energy to go and read this morning). Are we sure they were all passed?
The bizarre rules demonstrate how to manipulate the Labour Party. An electoral college amongst sub-branches is a wrinkle used by extremists such as Militant. You create potempkin sub-branches with 2 men and a hamster, then make meetings at short notice or bizarre times of the week when opponents cannot be available. And Abracadabra.
Equally, the central over-rule if close to an Election was one of the ways Blair & friends manipulated it back.
Corbyn? Not sure. For Starmer, I'd say it is symbolic.
There is a later hyperlink to 'Rules' which is the full 2020 Rulebook which doesn't have the amendments but is the best I could find (i.e. I didn't find a newer comprehensive rulebook).
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
Thats absurd. Massing troops to demand Ukraine be told it will never join NATO is entirely counter productive. It almost certainly wouldn't anyway, but it's now much less likely to be admitted as it would be in response to a threat.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
Heathener is right. This is simply posturing. Russia and North Korea have proven that the nuclear deterrent works. Whoever has a problem with those two countries can confiscate their unoccupied buildings in London and make trade a little trickier but that's the size of it.
All the US and their allies are doing is showing their impotence. They should sit down and try to convince Russia that Ukraine joining NATO is a non starter and never will be because as they're showing now NATO can't protect them.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Corbyn will be 73 in May and very likely 75 at the next election. He seems to keep good health but that is nearly old and senile enough to be an American President. A major factor in this bet surely has to be whether he runs anywhere. That alone would tip me towards him not being in the next Parliament.
Yes, he could take the Tony Benn route, of retiring from the Commons to spend more time on politics.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
I imagine the Russian media could have quite a field-day with the antics of Capt Tom Moore's family if they ever fancied it.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
Boris Johnson continues to look rough. I know it's relatively early morning and he has a lot on his mind what with that pesky questionnaire and his attempt to play Churchill, or is it Chamberlain, but he doesn't look too great to me.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
I don’t know your situation so have no idea whether you understand Russian sensibilities better than Truss (likely) or Wallace (maybe) but you do know that they have large support teams of experts, analysts etc helping them?
Maybe you do understand Russians more than the ambassador to Russia who will be giving input to the UK gov. Maybe you understand better than the teams of intelligence analysts, diplomats, people whose sole job is to analyse Russia - in which case you need to offer your expertise.
I would say that it’s one thing understanding Russian “sensibilities” to get what they “want” - we all know what they want, the more important thing is to understand Russian sensibilities to being told what they want is not possible and therefore what the push back will be and how to counteract it.
So they “want” something, because of their sensibilities, but when you say “no” you also will know that if you counter it one way you get one result and another way you get a different result.
So understanding their sensibilities as you put it seems to be like a parent who understands little Johnny really really wants ice cream because he feels he hasn’t had enough ice cream before. How you deal with it is more important - just give it to him for a quiet life or explain that he can’t have everything he wants when he wants it.
I’m not a parent but if I was I wouldn’t be a fan of the first option……
As to your point that Truss/Wallace show little understanding of historical sensibilities they are showing that they do - the justification by Germany and Japan in the past of complaining of encirclement and demanding their spheres of influence and then the world not shutting down that nonsense earlier didn’t work so I would say they are finally learning to cauterise the wound before it infects the body.
Finally your point is absolutely correct re Russian money however by luck we have found ourselves with a very big stick over those who Putin has to listen to - so we may as well use that stick and then throw it away and close them down once it’s been used - too late now so may as well make the most of the leverage.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
But you can do that without saying that an invasion is inevitable. I just feel that is damaging the Ukrainian economy more than is necessary.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
Do you agree, an inclination of the cranium is equally as effective as an oscillation of an optic towards an equine quadruped void of visionary capacity?
Okay. Let’s get this Saturday started then. 😉
*🐎 MoonRabbits Racing Tips.
HAYDOCK - 14:05 - Wholestone It’s a three mile trip but this horse proved it stays, fresh as a daffodil coming in from long lay off, and proved it can go well after lay off before.
ASCOT - 14:25 - Fortescue Has stamina for a damp day, yet to score this season but good winning habit previous, looking at current odds a good each way bet here.
HAYDOCK - 14:40 - The Galloping Bear This is horse racing but we are going to bet on a galloping bear, because it has won over 3m on heavy and soft. Whoever picks a winner from this race will have done well though.
ASCOT - 15:00 - Cap Du Mathan Betting on its recent form, where it has won over this distance in both heavy and soft.
Good luck to all bettors today 🙋♀️
there was a little horse he was just a foal he was very friendly, a lovely little soul the horse he had a dream that he was in race running very fast, as he set the pace running round the track faster than the rest proving to the others that he was quite the best heading for the finish, heading for the post this his what he dreamed of, the thing he wanted most taking home a trophy, a great big golden bowl - he was dreaming he was grown up, forgot he was a foal
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
I think your last sentence is shared by many but this is at Putin's door and nobody else
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
Thats absurd. Massing troops to demand Ukraine be told it will never join NATO is entirely counter productive. It almost certainly wouldn't anyway, but it's now much less likely to be admitted as it would be in response to a threat.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
Heathener is right. This is simply posturing. Russia and North Korea have proven that the nuclear deterrent works. Whoever has a problem with those two countries can confiscate their unoccupied buildings in London and make trade a little trickier but that's the size of it.
All the US and their allies are doing is showing their impotence. They should sit down and try to convince Russia that Ukraine joining NATO is a non starter and never will be because as they're showing now NATO can't protect them.
I don't find this line of argument convincing. Russian nuclear weapons protect Russia. I don't see why Russian nuclear weapons give them a right to Ukraine.
I'm quite disturbed by the number of people who are fatalistic about Russia overriding the democratic wishes of the Ukrainian people.
At the very least we have to make it as difficult for Putin as possible, so that he is dissuaded from going further next time. Otherwise, what's to stop him?
We also have to consider the very high risk of the next US President at best being an isolationist, and at worst being a Putinist useful idiot.
I find this very uncomfortable to say, because it goes against all my instincts and opinion for many decades, but I think we have to take rearmament and modernisation of our armed forces very seriously, and spend considerably more money - and encourage all our allies to do likewise.
Boris Johnson continues to look rough. I know it's relatively early morning and he has a lot on his mind what with that pesky questionnaire and his attempt to play Churchill, or is it Chamberlain, but he doesn't look too great to me.
I wonder what China are really thinking about the Ukraine situation.
I know that they are probably enjoying the thought of Russia cocking a snook at the west and the angst and attention on Russia not China as “the bad guys” and maybe supporting Russia against China’s “enemy” is attractive however China must also be aware that there will potentially be a knock-on to global trade especially if this spirals into a bigger issue and they really don’t need that.
They will also have seen the build up as a lab study for what would happen if they try the same with Taiwan so it’s served a purpose for them already.
So if you are China do you allow the current shenanigans to continue for a bit but step in before it goes bang?
If China has a word in Putin’s ear and says “no mate, not good for business” does Putin have to recalculate?
Can China get global kudos by stepping in and brokering “peace”?
China can walk out the winner from this without having lifted a finger.
The position of Ukraine in relation to Russia has some similarities to Taiwan in relation to China. China has an interest in the doctrine of opposing Western attempts to interfere when an authoritarian dictatorship invades a neighbour.
Were Russia to invade, incorporate a slice of Ukraine into Russia, and install a puppet in Kyiv, that would be a win for China too. It would make an invasion of Taiwan seem like a more realistic prospect.
And if the West then refused to buy Russian gas, China would be one of the few buyers for a distressed seller. That would be an opportunity to make Russia dependent on China.
Over the long term there must be trouble brewing over Chinese interests in the Russian far east. Lots of land and potential resources, low and impoverished Russian population.
Boris Johnson continues to look rough. I know it's relatively early morning and he has a lot on his mind what with that pesky questionnaire and his attempt to play Churchill, or is it Chamberlain, but he doesn't look too great to me.
“Russian tanks do not fear mud”, according to their propaganda. (Though they probably still get stuck.)
What about his aeroplanes? ☹️ Obviously I’m not the greatest military expert on this site, but tanks definitely were big in WWII, but 21st century military excursions a lot less so? I keep saying this, but with Putin now on every dart board in the western world, everyday people may have been fooled into thinking all this NATO build up in the region was to help Ukraine, all the uncontested Russian air strike after air strike on the news will makes us all so deflated and annoyed 😕
However Despite Ukraine sovereignty and right to self determination tottering on the brink yet again tonight, it’s been blown off the front of many front pages I’ve just read through. There’s plenty on these UK front pages I like tonight - I posted all week there needs to be unity amongst allies for best impact, it seems there’s no agreed sanction package yet because of too much wrangling between allies, but Boris is going to Munich now to sort it out. UK going to our EU allies and influencing them is exactly what I’ve wanted to see more of 🙂 I have posted for months I feel sorry for our security services trying to protect our way of life because I don’t trust our greedy and gullible MPs to be on board with this, and the Mail seems to be pushing this line too in their big front page story today. MSM pushing this can only be a good thing in my opinion. 🙂
There is a certain irony - of which sort I do not know - that this is being held in Munich .
A chance to get it right this time!
Just like UK voting in Europe 1975 out Europe 2016, Tories bright down by miners mid 70s smashed miners mid 80’s, like Rambo being send back to Vietnam in the second sequel and gets to win this time!
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
Thats absurd. Massing troops to demand Ukraine be told it will never join NATO is entirely counter productive. It almost certainly wouldn't anyway, but it's now much less likely to be admitted as it would be in response to a threat.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
Heathener is right. This is simply posturing. Russia and North Korea have proven that the nuclear deterrent works. Whoever has a problem with those two countries can confiscate their unoccupied buildings in London and make trade a little trickier but that's the size of it.
All the US and their allies are doing is showing their impotence. They should sit down and try to convince Russia that Ukraine joining NATO is a non starter and never will be because as they're showing now NATO can't protect them.
I don't find this line of argument convincing. Russian nuclear weapons protect Russia. I don't see why Russian nuclear weapons give them a right to Ukraine.
I'm quite disturbed by the number of people who are fatalistic about Russia overriding the democratic wishes of the Ukrainian people.
At the very least we have to make it as difficult for Putin as possible, so that he is dissuaded from going further next time. Otherwise, what's to stop him?
We also have to consider the very high risk of the next US President at best being an isolationist, and at worst being a Putinist useful idiot.
I find this very uncomfortable to say, because it goes against all my instincts and opinion for many decades, but I think we have to take rearmament and modernisation of our armed forces very seriously, and spend considerably more money - and encourage all our allies to do likewise.
As others have pointed out, the current position of Ukraine also demonstrates beyond doubt the complete fallacy of nuclear disarmanent. You ultimately end up getting invaded.
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
The times dictate how "radical" any manifesto can be. I would argue 1945 was a unique time and the radicalism of the Labour Manifesto at that election coincided with the aspirations and expectations not just of the service personnel but of a society which had undergone rapid and fundamental change.
The other radical Government of the post-war period, the Thatcher administration, didn't get elected in 1979 on a radical agenda - the 1970 Conservative Manifesto was more radical and foreshadowed much of what Thatcher would do but she needed to get elected and then it was the second term with the landslide majority that empowered radical policies.
Blair, conversely, wasn't radical and that's why he won in 1997. He basically took the fundamental tenets of the Thatcher settlement, accepted them but offered to manage the country better. The tragedy (in my view) was he had the majority to be radical in 1997 but didn't have the ideas - had 9/11 never happened, I suppose it's possible we'd have seen more radical proposals in the second term.
There's nothing wrong incidentally with "re-heating" old policy agendas. Cameron was just re-heated One Nation Conservatism and Johnson, in another life, might have offered re-heated Thatcherism.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward or rather offer policies with which people are comfortable before unleashing the Pandora's Box of radical new thinking (if you have such a box and want to unleash it of course).
Boris Johnson continues to look rough. I know it's relatively early morning and he has a lot on his mind what with that pesky questionnaire and his attempt to play Churchill, or is it Chamberlain, but he doesn't look too great to me.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
Can you give me an example from history of when appeasement has worked in the long term?
In my view the type of leaders who are willing to use the threat of force to get what they want tend to view compromise in this situation as a sign of weakness. Why shouldn't Putin return for more in 3-5 years?
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
Scaremongering? I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Heathener is quite supportive of Putin's desire for lebensraum.
So lebrnsraum doesn’t have to be strictly German? Can we English have a lebensraum too 🤗
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
Scaremongering? I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Heathener is quite supportive of Putin's desire for lebensraum.
So lebrnsraum doesn’t have to be strictly German? Can we English have a lebensraum too 🤗
Fortunately the only time “Living Room” is controversial in the UK is when it’s being decorated by Lulu Lyttle.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
Scaremongering? I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Heathener is quite supportive of Putin's desire for lebensraum.
So lebrnsraum doesn’t have to be strictly German? Can we English have a lebensraum too 🤗
It is Wales with its vast legion of second homers.
Mr. L, depends how you're meaning 'precursors'. From memory, they were eventually annihilated by the Eastern Romans. I think the area itself encourages the style of combat.
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
The times dictate how "radical" any manifesto can be. I would argue 1945 was a unique time and the radicalism of the Labour Manifesto at that election coincided with the aspirations and expectations not just of the service personnel but of a society which had undergone rapid and fundamental change.
The other radical Government of the post-war period, the Thatcher administration, didn't get elected in 1979 on a radical agenda - the 1970 Conservative Manifesto was more radical and foreshadowed much of what Thatcher would do but she needed to get elected and then it was the second term with the landslide majority that empowered radical policies.
Blair, conversely, wasn't radical and that's why he won in 1997. He basically took the fundamental tenets of the Thatcher settlement, accepted them but offered to manage the country better. The tragedy (in my view) was he had the majority to be radical in 1997 but didn't have the ideas - had 9/11 never happened, I suppose it's possible we'd have seen more radical proposals in the second term.
There's nothing wrong incidentally with "re-heating" old policy agendas. Cameron was just re-heated One Nation Conservatism and Johnson, in another life, might have offered re-heated Thatcherism.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward or rather offer policies with which people are comfortable before unleashing the Pandora's Box of radical new thinking (if you have such a box and want to unleash it of course).
SKS does not have the charisma of a Blair, so re-heated Blairism looks a bad call to me.
You can only offer next-to-nothing if you have a great personality, winning looks, floppy hair & boyish charm. Oh, how we all loved early Blair.
I also don't think Johnson will fight an election in 2024, if it looks like he will lose. Boris wants to be cherished, loved, adored, shagged.
So, my guess is that the election is not SKS versus Boris -- but SKS versus Rishi.
In fact, it would not surprise me if there is little substantive difference between the manifestos of the two parties by 2024, given SKS buys BREXIT.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
"I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye." - that's a very good summation of the argument for Appeasement. Which was an honest attempt to avoid war. By giving the Germans all the concession on neighbouring minorities, the thinking went, this will take the wind out of the sails of Greater German Nationalists* demanding war.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
This would be a highly unusual invasion, in that Ukraine currently has intel telling them to within a foot where each of the 196,467 Russian combatants are positioned.
You would assume that Russia's first steps in any invasion would be to disrupt the flow of this data, so look for satellite information being jammed. American certainty over Putin's intentions might be linked to having already seen such attempts.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
Can you give me an example from history of when appeasement has worked in the long term?
In my view the type of leaders who are willing to use the threat of force to get what they want tend to view compromise in this situation as a sign of weakness. Why shouldn't Putin return for more in 3-5 years?
Appeasing never works. The reason? If it prospers none calls it appeasin'.
It worked for India better than the alternatives for the length of the raj
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
Thanks 👍🏻 US would have one of the best intelligence capacity’s in the world, so when they go granular about blood and logistics, it really is terrorising Western listeners who think invasion is failure of everyone and just horrible I’m sure.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
One thing that the UK procurement process need to learn is the idea of the simple and cheap. For the price of Watchkeeper we could have darkened the skies with something like Predator.
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
The times dictate how "radical" any manifesto can be. I would argue 1945 was a unique time and the radicalism of the Labour Manifesto at that election coincided with the aspirations and expectations not just of the service personnel but of a society which had undergone rapid and fundamental change.
The other radical Government of the post-war period, the Thatcher administration, didn't get elected in 1979 on a radical agenda - the 1970 Conservative Manifesto was more radical and foreshadowed much of what Thatcher would do but she needed to get elected and then it was the second term with the landslide majority that empowered radical policies.
Blair, conversely, wasn't radical and that's why he won in 1997. He basically took the fundamental tenets of the Thatcher settlement, accepted them but offered to manage the country better. The tragedy (in my view) was he had the majority to be radical in 1997 but didn't have the ideas - had 9/11 never happened, I suppose it's possible we'd have seen more radical proposals in the second term.
There's nothing wrong incidentally with "re-heating" old policy agendas. Cameron was just re-heated One Nation Conservatism and Johnson, in another life, might have offered re-heated Thatcherism.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward or rather offer policies with which people are comfortable before unleashing the Pandora's Box of radical new thinking (if you have such a box and want to unleash it of course).
SKS does not have the charisma of a Blair, so re-heated Blairism looks a bad call to me.
You can only offer next-to-nothing if you have a great personality, winning looks, floppy hair & boyish charm. Oh, how we all loved early Blair.
I also don't think Johnson will fight an election in 2024, if it looks like he will lose. Boris wants to be cherished, loved, adored, shagged.
So, my guess is that the election is not SKS versus Boris -- but SKS versus Rishi.
In fact, it would not surprise me if there is little substantive difference between the manifestos of the two parties by 2024, given SKS buys BREXIT.
Boris will not step down, he will fight on like Trump unless removed. Trump too only lost by 5% in 2020 despite everything.
As for Brexit the difference between Starmer and Johnson or Sunak is Starmer would align the UK back closer to the EEA and CU even if he will not rejoin the full EU or EEA
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
This would be a highly unusual invasion, in that Ukraine currently has intel telling them to within a foot where each of the 196,467 Russian combatants are positioned.
You would assume that Russia's first steps in any invasion would be to disrupt the flow of this data, so look for satellite information being jammed. American certainty over Putin's intentions might be linked to having already seen such attempts.
It’s hopefully a very clever tactic for one of two reasons.
Firstly if the US say “Russia will invade on Sunday/Monday” and they do then Putin has to explain why the US know his plans and that everything the US said was true which isn’t a good look for a master KGB 4D chess player.
Secondly if Putin has to delay in order to show up the US for being wrong then this reduces the window of peak weather conditions which is not ideal, allows Ukraine more time to prepare which is not ideal, and increases the time where black swans can change the situation to Russia’s disadvantage.
There are many people in the world where if someone says “I know you are going to do this” then they force themselves to not do it as they don’t want the other person to be proved right out of spite.
There are also people who just have to prove you wrong so if you say “I know you are going to do x today” they don’t but then do it in two days time for the shear pettiness of being able to say you were wrong and so you don’t really know what you are talking about . Tiny differences that bolster their own belief about themselves….
Putin is a human being and subject to personal traits such as arrogance and vanities like everyone else…..
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
"I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye." - that's a very good summation of the argument for Appeasement. Which was an honest attempt to avoid war. By giving the Germans all the concession on neighbouring minorities, the thinking went, this will take the wind out of the sails of Greater German Nationalists* demanding war.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
Turning a blind eye as Russia absorbed the Ukraine would make future war with Russia more, not less, likely IMHO.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
Watchkeeper is a badge engineered Elbit Hermes. It's not armed and has a completely different mission to MQ-9A Reaper/Protector RG1.
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
Thanks 👍🏻 US would have one of the best intelligence capacity’s in the world, so when they go granular about blood and logistics, it really is terrorising Western listeners who think invasion is failure of everyone and just horrible I’m sure.
It has been interesting (to me) to see that since the 1970s, much of American strategy in crises and negotiations come from the writings of Herman Kahn. Where they went against his ideas - failure.
Most people get so upset by his theorising about nuclear war in 1955, that they forget to read the later part. What he called The Problem Of Reaching 1975, Alive.
The idea, for example in the 80s, that arms control needed to be bilateral, verified and specific became the foundation of the START Agreements. Which still hold sway.
He wrote a great deal on the phases of crises - *before* the Cuban missile crisis. He even predicted, almost by accident, that Khrushchev might try "adventurism" because of weakness at home.
A key part of his thinking was that having clear intentions, clear commitments and convincing the opponent of them was vital.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
One thing that the UK procurement process need to learn is the idea of the simple and cheap. For the price of Watchkeeper we could have darkened the skies with something like Predator.
Project sprawl. Everyone and their dog wants to have a piece of the action so the product goes from being for something specific to an unfocussed expensive mess.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
Watchkeeper is a badge engineered Elbit Hermes. It's not armed and has a completely different mission to MQ-9A Reaper/Protector RG1.
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
Boris Johnson continues to look rough. I know it's relatively early morning and he has a lot on his mind what with that pesky questionnaire and his attempt to play Churchill, or is it Chamberlain, but he doesn't look too great to me.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
Watchkeeper is a badge engineered Elbit Hermes. It's not armed and has a completely different mission to MQ-9A Reaper/Protector RG1.
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
So sayeth the RN man!
You're talking about an organisation which once scrubbed an entire Lynx course halfway through so they'd have enough flying hours to film an Oasis video.
Many thanks to Pip for the good analysis. As I know (and like) Jeremy and the CLP and have canvassed there quite a lot, I can probably contribute usefully. Some thoughts:
* Jeremy represents a long-standing strand of the party, and not in an especially extreme way - as leader, he made no effort to purge opponents and was notoriously reluctant to criticise individual Tories - "It's not about the individual, it's about the system". He isn't especially warm, but he's decent to others and uber-tolerant of other people - I've heard him acknowledge the strengths of people as diverse as Ian Paisley, IDS and Tony Blair. * The CLP is by no means solidly supportive - it's full of Guardian readers with a wide range of strong opinions, the most affably talkative CLP I've ever encountered: a fun time for a typical member is an evening in the pub debating Universal Minimum Wage or the best policy towards the Colombian drugs trade. Nonetheless he does have a majority there. * Jeremy is liked by most local voters, including Tories - he's been helping them individually for decades with the same kind of stubborn refusal to give up that frustrates even allies. His surgeries go on forever - he will patiently listen to everyone until they've finished, then knock himself out trying to sort out their problems. I also think some voters feel an element of distaste for national politics and will rally round him because they enjoy a sturdy individual standing up to a national party. * Islington N would be Labour anyway, but it's significant that the Greens are the main local opposition (the council is 47 Lab, 1 Green, and they're second in most places). * He'd like to be back in the PLP, as a member for 50+ years, but I doubt if he really cares that much. He won't set up his own party or join another, but could well stand as an independent. He'll have no shortage of helpers and his Labour opponent will struggle to get many. If the Greens decide not to oppose him, I think he'll win. * Starmer clearly wants to make an example of him, so I can't see him being the Labour candidate. I suspect that if the outcome is that he's elected as a lone independent left-wing voice, it'll actually suit everyone quite well.
I'm late to this, but really interesting thanks, and I agree with pretty much all of it.
My only doubt is this: would Corbyn be willing to stand against a Labour candidate - given his loyalty to the party, I'm not sure he would?
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
It has frequent adverts and now gets more viewers than Sky news sometimes
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
Big Jet TV man is on R4 saying they had 238k viewers yesterday & @bbcnickrobinson says “they dream of that at GB News”.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
"I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye." - that's a very good summation of the argument for Appeasement. Which was an honest attempt to avoid war. By giving the Germans all the concession on neighbouring minorities, the thinking went, this will take the wind out of the sails of Greater German Nationalists* demanding war.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
Who selected Munich? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was deliberate
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
Watchkeeper is a badge engineered Elbit Hermes. It's not armed and has a completely different mission to MQ-9A Reaper/Protector RG1.
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
A VERY distant relative got decorated flying with with the Army Air Corps.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
Can you give me an example from history of when appeasement has worked in the long term?
In my view the type of leaders who are willing to use the threat of force to get what they want tend to view compromise in this situation as a sign of weakness. Why shouldn't Putin return for more in 3-5 years?
Appeasing never works. The reason? If it prospers none calls it appeasin'.
It worked for India better than the alternatives for the length of the raj
In the Raj, the Danegeld and Persia it was annual payments of tribute. That’s the equivalent of combing back for more*
* or an insurance premium depending on your view of that industry
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
It has frequent adverts and now gets more viewers than Sky news sometimes
Doesn't say much for Sky news, does it. BBC had one of GB's journalists on QT this week. No, I didn't watch.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
I imagine the Russian media could have quite a field-day with the antics of Capt Tom Moore's family if they ever fancied it.
Another thing. Have we sold Ukraine any drones or don't we/Nato have ones as good as Turkey does?
The UK spent kazillions on developing Watchkeeper for surveillance - a classic example of gold plating. Too expensive for export, and the performance isn't great either. That is an inane return from £1.5 Billion.
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
Watchkeeper is a badge engineered Elbit Hermes. It's not armed and has a completely different mission to MQ-9A Reaper/Protector RG1.
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
What I meant was that the Wtachkeeper mess meant that the faction who wanted to by a working UACV from the US won, rather than the in-the-interests-of-industry-we-must-build-our-own types.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
"I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye." - that's a very good summation of the argument for Appeasement. Which was an honest attempt to avoid war. By giving the Germans all the concession on neighbouring minorities, the thinking went, this will take the wind out of the sails of Greater German Nationalists* demanding war.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
Who selected Munich? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was deliberate
It’s been an annual event since the 60s. History’s sense of humour again.
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
Big Jet TV man is on R4 saying they had 238k viewers yesterday & @bbcnickrobinson says “they dream of that at GB News”.
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
You’re not showing much concern for Russian sensibilities with your attitude to their money laundering. Why so different with their warmaking ?
"I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye." - that's a very good summation of the argument for Appeasement. Which was an honest attempt to avoid war. By giving the Germans all the concession on neighbouring minorities, the thinking went, this will take the wind out of the sails of Greater German Nationalists* demanding war.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
Who selected Munich? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was deliberate
Since its inception in the fall of 1963, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has changed in many ways – not just in terms of its name.
I wouldn't be surprised if the original reason for starting holding it there, back in 1963, was that participants would be reminded of various aspects of history.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
Thanks 👍🏻 US would have one of the best intelligence capacity’s in the world, so when they go granular about blood and logistics, it really is terrorising Western listeners who think invasion is failure of everyone and just horrible I’m sure.
It has been interesting (to me) to see that since the 1970s, much of American strategy in crises and negotiations come from the writings of Herman Kahn. Where they went against his ideas - failure.
Most people get so upset by his theorising about nuclear war in 1955, that they forget to read the later part. What he called The Problem Of Reaching 1975, Alive.
The idea, for example in the 80s, that arms control needed to be bilateral, verified and specific became the foundation of the START Agreements. Which still hold sway.
He wrote a great deal on the phases of crises - *before* the Cuban missile crisis. He even predicted, almost by accident, that Khrushchev might try "adventurism" because of weakness at home.
A key part of his thinking was that having clear intentions, clear commitments and convincing the opponent of them was vital.
Is credibility shredding scramble out Afghanistan last year example of when Hermanolgy goes wrong or why they needed it?
FWIW and on topic: my own opinion on Corbyn is not negative. He seems to be one of the best constituency MPs in Parliament. Lots of MPs seem to be no good at all. I have one who never turned up to any hustings in the election, and we basically haven't heard from at all since 2019. You just have to hope that they would be OK if you needed some sort of help, as the MP is always the last resort in such instances.
What I am also clear on is that Corbyn should never have been let anywhere near the leadership of the party or high office. It is hard to think of any MP less temprementally suitable for the role of decision maker on matters of state.
Russia is now allegedly evacuating citizens from the Donetsk area in light of an imminent Ukrainian attack. Because, of course, that is what you do when your opponent has forces nearly 2x your entire army situated in a high state of readiness on your borders. When better to attacK?
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
But how do you get 700,000 people to leave their homes as a charade? Big false flag explosions you can do, but I don't see how those people would be so cooperative as to assist in creating a fake refugee wave. It really does appear that there has been shelling (from both sides) and the war in the Russian separatist regions is on again.
I'm puzzled. Biden appears convinced that an invasion of Ukraine will happen. Yet the Ukrainians don't seem to be convinced themselves. They seem to be calling Putin's bluff.
Biden is putting pressure on Putin by making it clear to rest of the world that an invasion is planned and ready to go and all this stuff about RU turning up to support separatists that have come under intolerable pressure in Donetsk is horseshit.
You mean Biden is saying things publicly he knows isn’t true, but as a tactic to apply pressure and deter the invasion? Okay. If it stops this invasion catastrophe I’m all in. But surely you would stick to broad brush “invasion” if you are going to put out disinformation as a tactic? Washington is now very very specific in their intelligence agencies claims of what is about to happen, Kiev itself under attack in days, a whole scale invasion not an incursion to secure another chunk.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
One thing Biden is trying to do (I think) - he is trying to convince Putin that he (Biden) has the detailed intelligence on what is happening, that Biden is quite prepared for the war and the sanctions and other measures are ready to go.
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
Thanks 👍🏻 US would have one of the best intelligence capacity’s in the world, so when they go granular about blood and logistics, it really is terrorising Western listeners who think invasion is failure of everyone and just horrible I’m sure.
It has been interesting (to me) to see that since the 1970s, much of American strategy in crises and negotiations come from the writings of Herman Kahn. Where they went against his ideas - failure.
Most people get so upset by his theorising about nuclear war in 1955, that they forget to read the later part. What he called The Problem Of Reaching 1975, Alive.
The idea, for example in the 80s, that arms control needed to be bilateral, verified and specific became the foundation of the START Agreements. Which still hold sway.
He wrote a great deal on the phases of crises - *before* the Cuban missile crisis. He even predicted, almost by accident, that Khrushchev might try "adventurism" because of weakness at home.
A key part of his thinking was that having clear intentions, clear commitments and convincing the opponent of them was vital.
Is credibility shredding scramble out Afghanistan last year example of when Hermanolgy goes wrong or why they needed it?
Well, he warned against fighting "minor" wars without definite goals. But, then, every military writer since Gilgamesh has waned against that.
Do you agree, an inclination of the cranium is equally as effective as an oscillation of an optic towards an equine quadruped void of visionary capacity?
Okay. Let’s get this Saturday started then. 😉
*🐎 MoonRabbits Racing Tips.
HAYDOCK - 14:05 - Wholestone It’s a three mile trip but this horse proved it stays, fresh as a daffodil coming in from long lay off, and proved it can go well after lay off before.
ASCOT - 14:25 - Fortescue Has stamina for a damp day, yet to score this season but good winning habit previous, looking at current odds a good each way bet here.
HAYDOCK - 14:40 - The Galloping Bear This is horse racing but we are going to bet on a galloping bear, because it has won over 3m on heavy and soft. Whoever picks a winner from this race will have done well though.
ASCOT - 15:00 - Cap Du Mathan Betting on its recent form, where it has won over this distance in both heavy and soft.
Good luck to all bettors today 🙋♀️
there was a little horse he was just a foal he was very friendly, a lovely little soul the horse he had a dream that he was in race running very fast, as he set the pace running round the track faster than the rest proving to the others that he was quite the best heading for the finish, heading for the post this his what he dreamed of, the thing he wanted most taking home a trophy, a great big golden bowl - he was dreaming he was grown up, forgot he was a foal
Russia is now allegedly evacuating citizens from the Donetsk area in light of an imminent Ukrainian attack. Because, of course, that is what you do when your opponent has forces nearly 2x your entire army situated in a high state of readiness on your borders. When better to attacK?
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
But how do you get 700,000 people to leave their homes as a charade? Big false flag explosions you can do, but I don't see how those people would be so cooperative as to assist in creating a fake refugee wave. It really does appear that there has been shelling (from both sides) and the war in the Russian separatist regions is on again.
Smashing up the water supply is a good way to persuade people to leave...
readiness and intent Also high praise from him for UK being first in to provide weaponry to Ukraine when it started kicking off.
Readiness is not the same as intent and no amount of forces or logistics proves intent. I continue to believe this is all a feint by Putin and that he will not invade. He's seeking concessions. I may be wrong but we shall see.
And I don't see why we should be taking any notice of a former United States intelligence commander responsible for one of the greatest military blunders since the Second World War (in terms of the consequences) and who lied through his teeth about the intelligence behind it. Not to mention the fact that he's a convicted criminal who was forced to resign from his post.
US intelligence is crap. You'd have thought we might have learned our lessons over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we're expected to follow their scaremongering over Ukraine? What a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but 190,000 troops and all their kit on the other side of my garden fence would scare the crap out of me....
Which is exactly what Putin wants from you. He's a smart operator.
I'm not at all pro Putin but I don't think the west and NATO have got this right. We should be more aware of understandable Russian sensibilities and we should spell out that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO.
And keep right out of it.
So you are not pro Putin but your point is absolutely pro Putin
No I'm a pragmatist.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
Can you give me an example from history of when appeasement has worked in the long term?
In my view the type of leaders who are willing to use the threat of force to get what they want tend to view compromise in this situation as a sign of weakness. Why shouldn't Putin return for more in 3-5 years?
Appeasing never works. The reason? If it prospers none calls it appeasin'.
It worked for India better than the alternatives for the length of the raj
In the Raj, the Danegeld and Persia it was annual payments of tribute. That’s the equivalent of combing back for more*
* or an insurance premium depending on your view of that industry
Russia is now allegedly evacuating citizens from the Donetsk area in light of an imminent Ukrainian attack. Because, of course, that is what you do when your opponent has forces nearly 2x your entire army situated in a high state of readiness on your borders. When better to attacK?
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
But how do you get 700,000 people to leave their homes as a charade? Big false flag explosions you can do, but I don't see how those people would be so cooperative as to assist in creating a fake refugee wave. It really does appear that there has been shelling (from both sides) and the war in the Russian separatist regions is on again.
Smashing up the water supply is a good way to persuade people to leave...
That didn't work in Basra unfortunately. They all stayed and tried to kill us with IEDs.
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
The times dictate how "radical" any manifesto can be. I would argue 1945 was a unique time and the radicalism of the Labour Manifesto at that election coincided with the aspirations and expectations not just of the service personnel but of a society which had undergone rapid and fundamental change.
The other radical Government of the post-war period, the Thatcher administration, didn't get elected in 1979 on a radical agenda - the 1970 Conservative Manifesto was more radical and foreshadowed much of what Thatcher would do but she needed to get elected and then it was the second term with the landslide majority that empowered radical policies.
Blair, conversely, wasn't radical and that's why he won in 1997. He basically took the fundamental tenets of the Thatcher settlement, accepted them but offered to manage the country better. The tragedy (in my view) was he had the majority to be radical in 1997 but didn't have the ideas - had 9/11 never happened, I suppose it's possible we'd have seen more radical proposals in the second term.
There's nothing wrong incidentally with "re-heating" old policy agendas. Cameron was just re-heated One Nation Conservatism and Johnson, in another life, might have offered re-heated Thatcherism.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward or rather offer policies with which people are comfortable before unleashing the Pandora's Box of radical new thinking (if you have such a box and want to unleash it of course).
SKS does not have the charisma of a Blair, so re-heated Blairism looks a bad call to me.
You can only offer next-to-nothing if you have a great personality, winning looks, floppy hair & boyish charm. Oh, how we all loved early Blair.
I also don't think Johnson will fight an election in 2024, if it looks like he will lose. Boris wants to be cherished, loved, adored, shagged.
So, my guess is that the election is not SKS versus Boris -- but SKS versus Rishi.
In fact, it would not surprise me if there is little substantive difference between the manifestos of the two parties by 2024, given SKS buys BREXIT.
Boris will not step down, he will fight on like Trump unless removed. Trump too only lost by 5% in 2020 despite everything.
As for Brexit the difference between Starmer and Johnson or Sunak is Starmer would align the UK back closer to the EEA and CU even if he will not rejoin the full EU or EEA
If that is Starmer's EU relationship policy I would expect that to be popular, as it is pragmatic and sensible. Interesting that you compare Johnson with Trump. Hardly a flattering comparison
Russia is now allegedly evacuating citizens from the Donetsk area in light of an imminent Ukrainian attack. Because, of course, that is what you do when your opponent has forces nearly 2x your entire army situated in a high state of readiness on your borders. When better to attacK?
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
But how do you get 700,000 people to leave their homes as a charade? Big false flag explosions you can do, but I don't see how those people would be so cooperative as to assist in creating a fake refugee wave. It really does appear that there has been shelling (from both sides) and the war in the Russian separatist regions is on again.
Smashing up the water supply is a good way to persuade people to leave...
Blaming covid for the delay. Is that not fair, or do you suspect some other reason?
Guto Hari is bought and paid for by China.
Much as I loathe Johnson, I would be concerned that what you have suggested there could be libellous, so you might want to delete perhaps?
He was previously a Huawei lobbyist and has refused confirm to MPs and other parties that he supports the removal of Huawei network equipment from the UK. It's not controversial to say that a lobbyist for a Chinese state controlled company (controlled by the PLA and Chinese intelligence no less) is bought and paid for by China. It's true.
Comments
It might, on the other hand, be used to help persuade Russians that there is no alternative to an attack. It is increasingly looking as if Putin means this. I wonder when we will find out what was in Liz Truss's military alliance with the Ukraine.
Give me a break Nick.
I do also understand Russian sensibilities more than Liz Truss and Ben Wallace both of whom have showed incredible lack of historical awareness.
I'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye.
* At this point I fully expect a Godwin moment
p.s. If we really wanted to take the moral high ground we should have taken a much firmer stance towards Russian money and property laundering in the UK. There's so much hypocrisy in all this.
I really wish he was not leading the country right now but he is and I do not see a move against him before may
And another classic putinist diversionary argument at the end too. Yes, the UK is not morally perfect, but that all are sinners does not make all sins equal, nor does it prevent one sinner from accurately pointing out another sinner taking even worse action. It's perfectly possible to take the moral high ground without being faultless.
I am a pragmatist, we and others work with horrible regimes all over the planet because that is life. But equivocating about a possible invasion and suggesting that is equivalent to being hypocrites about money is not pragmatism unless someone is a member of the Stop the War coalition.
There is a later hyperlink to 'Rules' which is the full 2020 Rulebook which doesn't have the amendments but is the best I could find (i.e. I didn't find a newer comprehensive rulebook).
All the US and their allies are doing is showing their impotence. They should sit down and try to convince Russia that Ukraine joining NATO is a non starter and never will be because as they're showing now NATO can't protect them.
Why so different with their warmaking ?
I think Corbyn would win rather easily. He has a much, much higher profile than most independents. He has many celebrity backers. And Corbyn himself is very likeable & affable.
(Oh, I know he is not liked on pb.com, but pb.com is a very unrepresentative sample).
As regards Starmer, I personally think he would be very stupid to pick on Corbyn in this vindictive manner.
Corbyn hit on a good formula in 2017. It needs tweaking, not obliterating. And the pity of it is the country might actually be amenable to a fairly radical program by 2024.
Not the re-heated Blairism that SKS seems to offer.
Maybe you do understand Russians more than the ambassador to Russia who will be giving input to the UK gov. Maybe you understand better than the teams of intelligence analysts, diplomats, people whose sole job is to analyse Russia - in which case you need to offer your expertise.
I would say that it’s one thing understanding Russian “sensibilities” to get what they “want” - we all know what they want, the more important thing is to understand Russian sensibilities to being told what they want is not possible and therefore what the push back will be and how to counteract it.
So they “want” something, because of their sensibilities, but when you say “no” you also will know that if you counter it one way you get one result and another way you get a different result.
So understanding their sensibilities as you put it seems to be like a parent who understands little Johnny really really wants ice cream because he feels he hasn’t had enough ice cream before. How you deal with it is more important - just give it to him for a quiet life or explain that he can’t have everything he wants when he wants it.
I’m not a parent but if I was I wouldn’t be a fan of the first option……
As to your point that Truss/Wallace show little understanding of historical sensibilities they are showing that they do - the justification by Germany and Japan in the past of complaining of encirclement and demanding their spheres of influence and then the world not shutting down that nonsense earlier didn’t work so I would say they are finally learning to cauterise the wound before it infects the body.
Finally your point is absolutely correct re Russian money however by luck we have found ourselves with a very big stick over those who Putin has to listen to - so we may as well use that stick and then throw it away and close them down once it’s been used - too late now so may as well make the most of the leverage.
It does frighten and upset me a bit each time I hear it ☹️
Okay. Let’s get this Saturday started then. 😉
*🐎 MoonRabbits Racing Tips.
HAYDOCK - 14:05 - Wholestone
It’s a three mile trip but this horse proved it stays, fresh as a daffodil coming in from long lay off, and proved it can go well after lay off before.
ASCOT - 14:25 - Fortescue
Has stamina for a damp day, yet to score this season but good winning habit previous, looking at current odds a good each way bet here.
HAYDOCK - 14:40 - The Galloping Bear
This is horse racing but we are going to bet on a galloping bear, because it has won over 3m on heavy and soft. Whoever picks a winner from this race will have done well though.
ASCOT - 15:00 - Cap Du Mathan
Betting on its recent form, where it has won over this distance in both heavy and soft.
Good luck to all bettors today 🙋♀️
there was a little horse he was just a foal
he was very friendly, a lovely little soul
the horse he had a dream that he was in race
running very fast, as he set the pace
running round the track faster than the rest
proving to the others that he was quite the best
heading for the finish, heading for the post
this his what he dreamed of, the thing he wanted most
taking home a trophy, a great big golden bowl -
he was dreaming he was grown up, forgot he was a foal
I'm quite disturbed by the number of people who are fatalistic about Russia overriding the democratic wishes of the Ukrainian people.
At the very least we have to make it as difficult for Putin as possible, so that he is dissuaded from going further next time. Otherwise, what's to stop him?
We also have to consider the very high risk of the next US President at best being an isolationist, and at worst being a Putinist useful idiot.
I find this very uncomfortable to say, because it goes against all my instincts and opinion for many decades, but I think we have to take rearmament and modernisation of our armed forces very seriously, and spend considerably more money - and encourage all our allies to do likewise.
Just like UK voting in Europe 1975 out Europe 2016, Tories bright down by miners mid 70s smashed miners mid 80’s, like Rambo being send back to Vietnam in the second sequel and gets to win this time!
See the circle, square the circle.
The other radical Government of the post-war period, the Thatcher administration, didn't get elected in 1979 on a radical agenda - the 1970 Conservative Manifesto was more radical and foreshadowed much of what Thatcher would do but she needed to get elected and then it was the second term with the landslide majority that empowered radical policies.
Blair, conversely, wasn't radical and that's why he won in 1997. He basically took the fundamental tenets of the Thatcher settlement, accepted them but offered to manage the country better. The tragedy (in my view) was he had the majority to be radical in 1997 but didn't have the ideas - had 9/11 never happened, I suppose it's possible we'd have seen more radical proposals in the second term.
There's nothing wrong incidentally with "re-heating" old policy agendas. Cameron was just re-heated One Nation Conservatism and Johnson, in another life, might have offered re-heated Thatcherism.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward or rather offer policies with which people are comfortable before unleashing the Pandora's Box of radical new thinking (if you have such a box and want to unleash it of course).
In my view the type of leaders who are willing to use the threat of force to get what they want tend to view compromise in this situation as a sign of weakness. Why shouldn't Putin return for more in 3-5 years?
This comes of out the "intention phase" in crisis noted by a number of authors on the subject - a problem is often that one side convinces themselves that the weakness in their plan is actually covered by the enemies weakness.
In this case, a danger is that Putin (or his advisers) will say to themselves - "NATO will do nothing, because if they did, out attack plan would be a disaster for Russian. Therefore NATO will be weak cowards."
UK buying electricity from 5 independent countries at the moment, about 10% of UK demand.
https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1494815093309288453
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i378/scottish_renewables_a_united_kingdom_success_story.aspx
The saving feature for Starmer is that Corbyn almost certainly won't apologise.
If he does he will give an interview within days reverting to his previous position. Which will make his situation worse than a non-apology....
This is because Corbyn believes he is always right and never changes his mind.
You can only offer next-to-nothing if you have a great personality, winning looks, floppy hair & boyish charm. Oh, how we all loved early Blair.
I also don't think Johnson will fight an election in 2024, if it looks like he will lose. Boris wants to be cherished, loved, adored, shagged.
So, my guess is that the election is not SKS versus Boris -- but SKS versus Rishi.
In fact, it would not surprise me if there is little substantive difference between the manifestos of the two parties by 2024, given SKS buys BREXIT.
Incidentally, the location of the conference in Munich is good for the Ukrainians - The UK, French and German governments will be absolutely sure of one thing. That no agreement that even vaguely appears to be hostile to the interests of the Ukrainians will emerge from a conference in Munich. Not a single piece of paper...
*Who were much more than the Hugo boss fashionistas - Stauffenberg (yes, that one) and his circle were massively anti-Poland, for example, which was quite typical thinking of the old Junker caste.
This would be a highly unusual invasion, in that Ukraine currently has intel telling them to within a foot where each of the 196,467 Russian combatants are positioned.
You would assume that Russia's first steps in any invasion would be to disrupt the flow of this data, so look for satellite information being jammed. American certainty over Putin's intentions might be linked to having already seen such attempts.
If it prospers none calls it appeasin'.
It worked for India better than the alternatives for the length of the raj
Turkey is part of NATO. For now...
So we ended up being Reapers from the US for actual combat....
One thing that the UK procurement process need to learn is the idea of the simple and cheap. For the price of Watchkeeper we could have darkened the skies with something like Predator.
As for Brexit the difference between Starmer and Johnson or Sunak is Starmer would align the UK back closer to the EEA and CU even if he will not rejoin the full EU or EEA
Boris is a threat to national security.
Firstly if the US say “Russia will invade on Sunday/Monday” and they do then Putin has to explain why the US know his plans and that everything the US said was true which isn’t a good look for a master KGB 4D chess player.
Secondly if Putin has to delay in order to show up the US for being wrong then this reduces the window of peak weather conditions which is not ideal, allows Ukraine more time to prepare which is not ideal, and increases the time where black swans can change the situation to Russia’s disadvantage.
There are many people in the world where if someone says “I know you are going to do this” then they force themselves to not do it as they don’t want the other person to be proved right out of spite.
There are also people who just have to prove you wrong so if you say “I know you are going to do x today” they don’t but then do it in two days time for the shear pettiness of being able to say you were wrong and so you don’t really know what you are talking about . Tiny differences that bolster their own belief about themselves….
Putin is a human being and subject to personal traits such as arrogance and vanities like everyone else…..
Disaster was pretty much guaranteed for Watchkeeper when it was decided to have the British Army operate it. They are the most disorganised and unprofessional set of military aviators this side of the Urals.
Most people get so upset by his theorising about nuclear war in 1955, that they forget to read the later part. What he called The Problem Of Reaching 1975, Alive.
The idea, for example in the 80s, that arms control needed to be bilateral, verified and specific became the foundation of the START Agreements. Which still hold sway.
He wrote a great deal on the phases of crises - *before* the Cuban missile crisis. He even predicted, almost by accident, that Khrushchev might try "adventurism" because of weakness at home.
A key part of his thinking was that having clear intentions, clear commitments and convincing the opponent of them was vital.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1494993917464301574?s=20&t=adnjzMkSUl3DgOcfgQyZ_g
My only doubt is this: would Corbyn be willing to stand against a Labour candidate - given his loyalty to the party, I'm not sure he would?
https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1494688693461917708?s=21
On a slightly associated note does anyone know what finances are keeping GBNews afloat, are they actually making money? The endless succession of raddled grifters won’t be working for nothing.
* or an insurance premium depending on your view of that industry
Is this Gallows humour?
I won’t hang around, I’m off into the kitchen. going to be an exciting afternoon in front IT’V award winning 🐎 coverage.
History’s sense of humour again.
By August 2020 - 300,000.
Today - less than Big Jet TV, Nick?
“It would be better to just put the other guys [Labour] in and let them fuck it up and come back with more of an idea of what we want to do."
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/inside-boris-johnsons-fractured-tory-party-we-dont-know-what-were-doing-1469351
"Talking to Tory MPs sometimes feels like canvassing the cast of Succession ahead of its latest uncertain attempt to defenestrate Logan Roy."
@harrytlambert on whether the campaign to oust Boris Johnson has collapsed. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/02/has-the-campaign-to-oust-boris-johnson-collapsed
Since its inception in the fall of 1963, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has changed in many ways – not just in terms of its name.
I wouldn't be surprised if the original reason for starting holding it there, back in 1963, was that participants would be reminded of various aspects of history.
What I am also clear on is that Corbyn should never have been let anywhere near the leadership of the party or high office. It is hard to think of any MP less temprementally suitable for the role of decision maker on matters of state.
Mine for today
Single
Grivetana 13:38 Wincanton
Trixie
Grivetana 13:38 Wincanton
Goshen 15:20 Wincanton
Mr Glass 15:58 Wincanton
Treble
Adrimel 1:00 Haydock
Bob and Co 4:25 Haydock
Grivetana 13:38 Wincanton
EW Single
Saint Calvados 3:38 Ascot
Good Luck to everyone
Macron - 24%
Le Pen - 17%
Pecresse - 15%
Zemmour - 15%
So if one of the right candidates pulls out and their votes get reallocated to the other two, could Macron get eliminated in the first round?
Shaun Walker
@shaunwalker7
There seem to be four possible scenarios for Putin now:
1. Full invasion and regime change as per US predictions.
But how would they hold the country without a sustained occupation?
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1494949269735985152