I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Putin is said to have been deeply affected by the way Muammar Qaddafi was killed. He watched the video of a bloodied Qaddafi dragged from his bunker, sodomized, and shot—over and over and over again. He thinks he is doing everything to avoid a similar fate. He's doing the opposite
Ukraine is outgunned and much of it will end up in ruins as this war progresses, but the country is very far from finished.
I hope you're right but I fear this will be over very, very, quickly.
We are both guessing, obviously, but the early signs are encouraging. The Ukrainians have fight in them, and we need to remember that Russia is powerful but it's hardly invincible.
The Soviet Union was bigger, nastier and stronger than the Russian Federation and it still couldn't beat Afghanistan - and Afghanistan wasn't sat immediately next door to NATO, with its effectively inexhaustible conveyer belt of weaponry that's presumably available to the Ukrainian Government on a "buy now, don't worry about paying later" basis.
Russia can infiltrate every organ of the Ukranian state (or the resistance movement after the defeat) without any significant cultural or linguistic barriers. In that sense it is easier to occupy than Afghanistan. It'll be more like the English occupation of the 6 counties and we kept that up for a good long while.
We enjoy the backing of most of the population in Northern Ireland (and were still caused considerable trouble). Russia does not have that benefit.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Though the argument made by the military that spending on conventional forces rather than trident would be more effective is not one to be casually dismissed
Putin has lost his marbles - and given his access to the nuclear codes it's worrying that we can now conceive circumstances in which he'd push the button.
I think fairly soon they'll install a puppet regime in the Ukraine, but a debilitating insurgency will tie the Russians down for however long they stay - and the puppet govt will need massive troop support to keep it in place. Added to which they need to keep the lid on Belarus, and possibly large street protests at home.
I think our best hope is for a palace coup led by Sergei Lavrov, or whoever.
The Russians have proved very good at keeping a lid on dissent in Russia. They seem prepared to target all the potential leaders of a sustained resistance. It's quite possible that a majority of those most opposed to the Russians end up either dead, imprisoned or in Poland.
I'm not convinced there will be a major insurgency.
This is not to doubt the will of Ukrainians to resist, or their courage, but I think an insurgency is not all that easy to sustain, and the Russians will be prepared to be a lot more brutal than the Americans.
Worth noting that the massive protests in Belarus were completely suppressed, so Russia can do the same.
Putin will go by internal political intrigue, not mass uprising.
Unless the army mutinies. But unless the Ukrainians defeat it, that seems very unlikely.
And it's not easy to see how the Ukrainians can defeat what's being thrown at them. The murder of those 13 soldiers in the Black Sea by the Russian warship rather grimly encapsulates the situation.
It was impossible to see Stone Age Vietnam defeating superpower America. But they did
And terrain is almost irrelevant. Yes, Afghanistan had mountains, but one of the centres of Vietnamese resistance was the flat Mekong Delta
All that matters is the will of the people to resist - and a ready supply of arms from outsiders.
So far I’d say both are in place. Ukraine borders NATO. But maybe Putin can crush all resistance. We shall see
Because you and I are talking about different things. I am talking about a humiliating military reverse that sees the Russian army driven out of Ukraine by force, knowing they have been outmatched. You're talking about making any subsequent occupation so costly and frustrating Russia gives up and goes home.
The first is when mutinies turn into revolutions. The second rather less commonly so. It was the coup of August 1991 that turned the Soviet army against the Soviet government, not the withdrawal from Afghanistan or Eastern Europe.
In any case, the latter option could easily take years. I don't think we have that long to deal with Putin.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
Mr. Dickson, do you think Scottish nationalism, which would've separated Scotland from both the UK and EU, would also have been a 'triumph for Putin'?
I suspect that Putin would encourage Sindy too, as he did with Brexit. A major theme of his foreign policy is to foment internal division in Western countries. Hence his troll farms being anti-woke too.
It doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of the issue, whether Brexit or Sindy, or BLM, but we should be aware of Putin's manipulations, and decide issues on their own merits.
Putin also foments Wokeness, on the Woke side. Of course you fastidiously pretend otherwise
Heck, Putin probably has a Reasonable Centrist Dad department in one of his troll farms. Sowing as many divisions as possible is what he does.
The UK is doing just fine at ripping itself apart. It doesn’t need any external assistance.
There are some encouraging reports of Russian soldiers deserting, although not sure how accurate they are.
Another encouraging fact: apart from Russia and Belarus, Ukraine is bordered or neighboured by countries that are desperate to see her survive. Moldova. Romania. Poland. The Baltics. Maybe Turkey. Further away she has the USA, France and the UK.
The international goodwill towards Ukraine is enormous. Personally, I’ve not known a geopolitical event which has so united my friends and family (and they come in all stripes, from far left to hard right, from Remoaner to Ukipper). They all want Ukraine to prevail
Of course this may quickly dissipate, but it is no small thing
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Though the argument made by the military that spending on conventional forces rather than trident would be more effective is not one to be casually dismissed
Hacker: 'It costs £75 a year to feed a starving African child. It costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent. If Britain abandoned nuclear weapons, how many starving African children could be saved?'
Sir Humphrey: 'That's easy. None. They'd spend it on conventional weapons instead.'
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
It was foolish and stupid to allow London to become a centre for Russian dirty money, but probably didn't make any difference to whether or not Putin decided to invade Ukraine.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Though the argument made by the military that spending on conventional forces rather than trident would be more effective is not one to be casually dismissed
It pretty much is now, isn't it, with an aggressive Putin threatening to use them?
Also, the military always argue amongst themselves about how money should be spent. Lots of lovely money gets spent on the Trident system that other branches of the military would quite like. I tend to ignore such comments as rather self-serving.
The truth is we need to see more spending on our armed forces, and other areas of public life.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
AFAICR it was well over a month after her initial comment. You'd think if she really thought she was wrong, she'd have apologised earlier.
I'm just applying the same sort of thinking that many do about politicians they don't like.
Just a week before her apology she was saying that there was no chance she would apologise, then appaerntly her apology a week later was the most sincere ever by a politician, its quite sad that intelligent people fall for this nonsense.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
AFAICR it was well over a month after her initial comment. You'd think if she really thought she was wrong, she'd have apologised earlier.
I'm just applying the same sort of thinking that many do about politicians they don't like.
Sometimes a bit of reflection and time helps. Certainly in the link that I gave several prominent Tory MPs accepted her sincerity in apologising.
The genuineness of an apology is through true repentance, which includes a commitment to not making the same mistake again. To her credit Rayner has moderated her language, at least so far.
There are some encouraging reports of Russian soldiers deserting, although not sure how accurate they are.
Another encouraging fact: apart from Russia and Belarus, Ukraine is bordered or neighboured by countries that are desperate to see her survive. Moldova. Romania. Poland. The Baltics. Maybe Turkey. Further away she has the USA, France and the UK.
The international goodwill towards Ukraine is enormous. Personally, I’ve not known a geopolitical event which has so united my friends and family (and they come in all stripes, from far left to hard right, from Remoaner to Ukipper). They all want Ukraine to prevail
Of course this may quickly dissipate, but it is no small thing
The next president of the US could well be someone who would be happy to see Ukraine (and NATO) disappear.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
It was foolish and stupid to allow London to become a centre for Russian dirty money, but probably didn't make any difference to whether or not Putin decided to invade Ukraine.
There are some encouraging reports of Russian soldiers deserting, although not sure how accurate they are.
Another encouraging fact: apart from Russia and Belarus, Ukraine is bordered or neighboured by countries that are desperate to see her survive. Moldova. Romania. Poland. The Baltics. Maybe Turkey. Further away she has the USA, France and the UK.
The international goodwill towards Ukraine is enormous. Personally, I’ve not known a geopolitical event which has so united my friends and family (and they come in all stripes, from far left to hard right, from Remoaner to Ukipper). They all want Ukraine to prevail
Of course this may quickly dissipate, but it is no small thing
Yes, it's also pan-European, looking at twitter. From Iceland to Cyprus.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
AFAICR it was well over a month after her initial comment. You'd think if she really thought she was wrong, she'd have apologised earlier.
I'm just applying the same sort of thinking that many do about politicians they don't like.
Sometimes a bit of reflection and time helps. Certainly in the link that I gave several prominent Tory MPs accepted her sincerity in apologising.
The genuineness of an apology is through true repentance, which includes a commitment to not making the same mistake again. To her credit Rayner has moderated her language, at least so far.
I felt her apology was sincere and eloquent, and should be accepted. And I also felt her initial remark was crass and offensive. People must be allowed to repent.
She is also growing into the role and might one day make a surprisingly good prime minister. A hint of a leftwing Thatcher about her
There are some encouraging reports of Russian soldiers deserting, although not sure how accurate they are.
Another encouraging fact: apart from Russia and Belarus, Ukraine is bordered or neighboured by countries that are desperate to see her survive. Moldova. Romania. Poland. The Baltics. Maybe Turkey. Further away she has the USA, France and the UK.
The international goodwill towards Ukraine is enormous. Personally, I’ve not known a geopolitical event which has so united my friends and family (and they come in all stripes, from far left to hard right, from Remoaner to Ukipper). They all want Ukraine to prevail
Of course this may quickly dissipate, but it is no small thing
The next president of the US could well be someone who would be happy to see Ukraine (and NATO) disappear.
Strategically this is the moment that we have to act. It is hopeless to try and bring Putin in to the western political system. He has to be pushed back out of Eastern Europe and overthrown. Only by building an alliance with a reformed Russia can we contain China and the rise of Islamism. If we are spending all our energy fucking around with the eastern borders of Europe for the next decades responding to provocations by Putin we will be menaced by both of these more sinister forces, which are ultimately a far greater danger to our way of life than any threat posed by the Russian people, with whom we ultimately share much in common. Only by taking this stance do the long term objectives of Western europe and the US allign.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Some people like brash arrogant agents of chaos. Who would have thunk it?
With the price of hydrocarbons & minerals set to do what they always do in a war, will the Russian economy actually be that badly hit ?
Doesn't look like it.
I wonder whether the value of the military kit the West has sent to Ukraine has yet exceeded the money sent to Russia for raw materials over the same period?
Just as the Russian troll farms fight both sides of the argument, it looks like the West's money is also fighting on both sides in Ukraine. Assuming this is not the intent from the West, we should stop fighting on Russia's side PDQ.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
When the GOP win the midterms they're going to make sure the Democrats never ever ever win again.
With the price of hydrocarbons & minerals set to do what they always do in a war, will the Russian economy actually be that badly hit ?
In the medium term, if Russia continues to be deprived of technology and machinery for its oil and gas industry, if will significantly affect their ability to produce efficiently, so yes.
That assumes, of course, that we don't just start trading with them again as usual in a year's time.
🚨 #UKRAINE NEWS | Battle of Chernihiv - According to the UK Ministry of Defence, Russian forces attacking Chernihiv on the 24th were halted outside the city. Ukraine say they repelled an attack by the Russian army in Chernihiv and seized Russian equipment and documents.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
Well, if you're going to spout rubbish like that, it merely proves that there's no point in treating you like a reasoning adult.
With the price of hydrocarbons & minerals set to do what they always do in a war, will the Russian economy actually be that badly hit ?
In the medium term, if Russia continues to be deprived of technology and machinery for its oil and gas industry, if will significantly affect their ability to produce efficiently, so yes.
That assumes, of course, that we don't just start trading with them again as usual in a year's time.
More likely to be eighteen months, on this occasion.
Incidentally one point against Putin being potentially willing to blow up the world - if he wasn't thinking about material possessions he wouldn't have moved his yacht out of Germany.
🚨 #UKRAINE NEWS | Battle of Chernihiv - According to the UK Ministry of Defence, Russian forces attacking Chernihiv on the 24th were halted outside the city. Ukraine say they repelled an attack by the Russian army in Chernihiv and seized Russian equipment and documents.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
When the GOP win the midterms they're going to make sure the Democrats never ever ever win again.
The Putin support could actually be damaging them now. The Republicans are increasingly riven in all sorts of directions, because the opposition to Trump from one group, now represented by former enablers like McConnell, still hasn't faded away. Trump's "genius" comments on Putin have also been very widely publicised in the last 24 hours.
Damn gutsy people, the Ukrainians. If their resistance hastens the end of Putin in the Kremlin, then the world will owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
They stand at the opposite end of the spectrum of regard than those spineless, self-centred leaders within the EU. Today more than ever, I am relieved we are now unshackled from that moral vacuum.
Macron has performed better than Johnson, I would say personally. I can't see what lasting impact Johnson and Truss with all their arm waving have made, anywhere in this crisis.
Biden has provided accurate intelligence ; Macron has kept a channel of communication open. That's about it, as far as I can see.
We were early with weapons, moral support, training and intelligence. The Ukrainians are very grateful from the UK’s actions. From a public perspective we are a counterpoint to the US - on this we are aligned so it is different to stand out in the way Macron could do
🚨 #UKRAINE NEWS | Battle of Chernihiv - According to the UK Ministry of Defence, Russian forces attacking Chernihiv on the 24th were halted outside the city. Ukraine say they repelled an attack by the Russian army in Chernihiv and seized Russian equipment and documents.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Putin pretends to be a Christian, is fervently nationalistic and hates gays. That's enough.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
It is based on the not unreasonable idea that there is a clash of civilisations, and it is a waste of time and effort fighting Putin, when our attention should be focussed on other parts of the world - China, Islamism as per my last post. However, this has led them to fundamentally misread the regime that exists in Russia. The last decade demonstrates that Putins regime cannot be bought in to any alliance with the West. It is fundamentally at odds with many values exhibited by the West, most fundamentally on basic ideas of freedom and democracy. The best hope is that Putin is overthrown; but if we are to work with any future regime, there needs to be acceptance of certain cultural differences with the Russian people that exist and are just tolerated.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Though the argument made by the military that spending on conventional forces rather than trident would be more effective is not one to be casually dismissed
Hacker: 'It costs £75 a year to feed a starving African child. It costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent. If Britain abandoned nuclear weapons, how many starving African children could be saved?'
Sir Humphrey: 'That's easy. None. They'd spend it on conventional weapons instead.'
Some of the finest comedy writing we’re likely to witness. I fear comedy is a dying art.
(I’m still grieving for Barry Cryer, Tim Brooke-Taylor, Humph, Jeremy Hardy etc. I spent large chunks of yesterday guffawing my head off listening to old I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue episodes. Had to cheer myself up. The wife couldn’t understand why I was in such a good mood after such an horrific day.)
🚨 #UKRAINE NEWS | Battle of Chernihiv - According to the UK Ministry of Defence, Russian forces attacking Chernihiv on the 24th were halted outside the city. Ukraine say they repelled an attack by the Russian army in Chernihiv and seized Russian equipment and documents.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
Was MAD invented? It seems like it's more of a natural consequence of the proliferation of powerful nuclear weapons. Maybe it's because we live inside it, but I can't see an alternative. Unless you mean in a 'the only way to win is if no one plays' kinda way, which I agree with but we don't have that option, and maybe we never did.
This news is so grim. I'm still in bed, trying to muster the will to get up and go to work. I keep telling myself to stop being dramatic, Ukraine is far away, my life isn't different from what it was last week etc, but this all feels pretty dire. I'll get up, of course, but I can't recall a world event that has ever made me feel like this.
The next president of the US could well be someone who would be happy to see Ukraine (and NATO) disappear.
Not too sure that Putin is eligible to be POTUS even if he was born in Hawaii ?!?
Vladimir Putin with all his faults(!) would still be a better POTUS than Trump.
Discuss.
No.
Putin is much more capable than Trump. Ultimately Trump was too inept to sufficiently subvert democracy in the US to stay in power. I admit that surprised me. Putin would not have failed in that way.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
When the GOP win the midterms they're going to make sure the Democrats never ever ever win again.
Yep - US democracy is in dire peril. Also worth noting, though, that the UK government is in the process of legislating to criminalise the kinds of spontaneous, anti-war protests that we are currently seeing in Russia.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Putin pretends to be a Christian, is fervently nationalistic and hates gays. That's enough.
He's also a nasty misogynist, once having described this individual on his conviction for serial rape as 'a mighty man...how I envy him.'
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
Well, if you're going to spout rubbish like that, it merely proves that there's no point in treating you like a reasoning adult.
Putin is said to have been deeply affected by the way Muammar Qaddafi was killed. He watched the video of a bloodied Qaddafi dragged from his bunker, sodomized, and shot—over and over and over again. He thinks he is doing everything to avoid a similar fate. He's doing the opposite
Ukraine is outgunned and much of it will end up in ruins as this war progresses, but the country is very far from finished.
I hope you're right but I fear this will be over very, very, quickly.
We are both guessing, obviously, but the early signs are encouraging. The Ukrainians have fight in them, and we need to remember that Russia is powerful but it's hardly invincible.
The Soviet Union was bigger, nastier and stronger than the Russian Federation and it still couldn't beat Afghanistan - and Afghanistan wasn't sat immediately next door to NATO, with its effectively inexhaustible conveyer belt of weaponry that's presumably available to the Ukrainian Government on a "buy now, don't worry about paying later" basis.
Russia can infiltrate every organ of the Ukranian state (or the resistance movement after the defeat) without any significant cultural or linguistic barriers. In that sense it is easier to occupy than Afghanistan. It'll be more like the English occupation of the 6 counties and we kept that up for a good long while.
We enjoy the backing of most of the population in Northern Ireland (and were still caused considerable trouble). Russia does not have that benefit.
Not that 'enjoy' is necessarily the first word that comes to mind.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Putin pretends to be a Christian, is fervently nationalistic and hates gays. That's enough.
His latest batch of kids are being raised muslim though. According to VK...
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
It is based on the not unreasonable idea that there is a clash of civilisations, and it is a waste of time and effort fighting Putin, when our attention should be focussed on other parts of the world - China, Islamism as per my last post. However, this has led them to fundamentally misread the regime that exists in Russia. The last decade demonstrates that Putins regime cannot be bought in to any alliance with the West. It is fundamentally at odds with many values exhibited by the West, most fundamentally on basic ideas of freedom and democracy. The best hope is that Putin is overthrown; but if we are to work with any future regime, there needs to be acceptance of certain cultural differences with the Russian people that exist and are just tolerated.
That is genuinely enlightening. Like a perfect Spectator article reduced to one succinct paragraph. Thankyou
Damn gutsy people, the Ukrainians. If their resistance hastens the end of Putin in the Kremlin, then the world will owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
They stand at the opposite end of the spectrum of regard than those spineless, self-centred leaders within the EU. Today more than ever, I am relieved we are now unshackled from that moral vacuum.
Macron has performed better than Johnson, I would say personally. I can't see what lasting impact Johnson and Truss with all their arm waving have made, anywhere in this crisis.
Biden has provided accurate intelligence ; Macron has kept a channel of communication open. That's about it, as far as I can see.
We were early with weapons, moral support, training and intelligence. The Ukrainians are very grateful from the UK’s actions. From a public perspective we are a counterpoint to the US - on this we are aligned so it is different to stand out in the way Macron could do
It's the US though that has provided the main intelligence predictions all along, as one would have expected. One area I do agree on is the training and weapons, but that very much depends what the long term use of that all is.
Moral support is also of limited value if you can't back it up with direct involvement, and despite all the encouraging words NATO military planners understandably so far don't want to risk incineration for a non-critical interest. The strongest moral support in that instance can also be two-sided ; Zelenskiy seems to feel betrayed today.
When a commercial airliner MH17 was shot down by Putin's men, 283 people were killed including 80 children.
We chuntered, we moaned, but we still allowed Putin's Russian money to flow through London. Where were the UK calls then to ban them from SWIFT?
Instead Boris Johnson played tennis with the wife of one of Putin's mafia for a £160,000 donation to the tory party.
So easy to condemn other countries. To pick the speck out of their eyes and miss the bloody great plank which has been in our own for years.
The UK are utter hypocrites. Conservatives especially so.
You said NOT EVEN A WEEK AGO: "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."
"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'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye."
Now we're asked to swallow a "we should have done more earlier" line from you.
I would like to take this opportunity to gently encourage you to get in the fucking sea.
When Heathener first turned up we all thought she was another Russian troll, albeit much more sophisticated than the usual BS about Holocaust survivors and BA pilots.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
Well, if you're going to spout rubbish like that, it merely proves that there's no point in treating you like a reasoning adult.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MAD didn't apply as only one country had nuclear weapons (and they were sufficiently crude that they couldn't destroy a fairly small country, never mind the whole planet).
Indeed. The two Japanese mass murder events were prior to the invention of the idiotic MAD paradigm, which guarantees that No.3 will happen.
Was MAD invented? It seems like it's more of a natural consequence of the proliferation of powerful nuclear weapons. Maybe it's because we live inside it, but I can't see an alternative. Unless you mean in a 'the only way to win is if no one plays' kinda way, which I agree with but we don't have that option, and maybe we never did.
This news is so grim. I'm still in bed, trying to muster the will to get up and go to work. I keep telling myself to stop being dramatic, Ukraine is far away, my life isn't different from what it was last week etc, but this all feels pretty dire. I'll get up, of course, but I can't recall a world event that has ever made me feel like this.
The attempted insurrection on January 6th felt very similar, but was mostly over within a few hours. I felt on edge until Biden was inaugurated though.
"Apart from tougher sanctions it is hard to see what the international community can do short of war with a nuclear power. Mike Smithson"
To answer that, the answer is to provide more, much more, in the way of arms to allow the Ukranian forces to defend their country themselves. The distinction that Ben Wallace made this morning is the correct one.
When a commercial airliner MH17 was shot down by Putin's men, 283 people were killed including 80 children.
We chuntered, we moaned, but we still allowed Putin's Russian money to flow through London. Where were the UK calls then to ban them from SWIFT?
Instead Boris Johnson played tennis with the wife of one of Putin's mafia for a £160,000 donation to the tory party.
So easy to condemn other countries. To pick the speck out of their eyes and miss the bloody great plank which has been in our own for years.
The UK are utter hypocrites. Conservatives especially so.
You said NOT EVEN A WEEK AGO: "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."
"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'm afraid that for the greater world peace you sometimes, often, have to turn a blind eye."
Now we're asked to swallow a "we should have done more earlier" line from you.
I would like to take this opportunity to gently encourage you to get in the fucking sea.
When Heathener first turned up we all thought she was another Russian troll, albeit much more sophisticated than the usual BS about Holocaust survivors and BA pilots.
Putin has lost his marbles - and given his access to the nuclear codes it's worrying that we can now conceive circumstances in which he'd push the button.
I think fairly soon they'll install a puppet regime in the Ukraine, but a debilitating insurgency will tie the Russians down for however long they stay - and the puppet govt will need massive troop support to keep it in place. Added to which they need to keep the lid on Belarus, and possibly large street protests at home.
I think our best hope is for a palace coup led by Sergei Lavrov, or whoever.
The Russians have proved very good at keeping a lid on dissent in Russia. They seem prepared to target all the potential leaders of a sustained resistance. It's quite possible that a majority of those most opposed to the Russians end up either dead, imprisoned or in Poland.
I'm not convinced there will be a major insurgency.
This is not to doubt the will of Ukrainians to resist, or their courage, but I think an insurgency is not all that easy to sustain, and the Russians will be prepared to be a lot more brutal than the Americans.
Worth noting that the massive protests in Belarus were completely suppressed, so Russia can do the same.
Putin will go by internal political intrigue, not mass uprising.
Unless the army mutinies. But unless the Ukrainians defeat it, that seems very unlikely.
And it's not easy to see how the Ukrainians can defeat what's being thrown at them. The murder of those 13 soldiers in the Black Sea by the Russian warship rather grimly encapsulates the situation.
It was impossible to see Stone Age Vietnam defeating superpower America. But they did
And terrain is almost irrelevant. Yes, Afghanistan had mountains, but one of the centres of Vietnamese resistance was the flat Mekong Delta
All that matters is the will of the people to resist - and a ready supply of arms from outsiders.
So far I’d say both are in place. Ukraine borders NATO. But maybe Putin can crush all resistance. We shall see
The Soviets in WW2 and China vs Japan ultimately won, like the NLF in Vietnam and Taliban in Afghanistan, by refusing to accept defeat despite massive losses and years of occupation. It is a very painful route to follow.
By any reasonable analysis of the history of the last thousand years, the Scottish nation ought not to still exist. We are thrawn bastards. So are Ukrainians.
The next president of the US could well be someone who would be happy to see Ukraine (and NATO) disappear.
Not too sure that Putin is eligible to be POTUS even if he was born in Hawaii ?!?
Vladimir Putin with all his faults(!) would still be a better POTUS than Trump.
Discuss.
As the preeminent PBer on matters of ARSE I should advise you that Trump and Putin are the repulsive and odious cheeks of the same rear end.
Posing the question clarifies the answer, doesn't it?
Yet I'm willing to bet many Republicans would have paused, on the basis Trump isn't in power any more and Putin is a la the answer given by @LostPassword .
"Apart from tougher sanctions it is hard to see what the international community can do short of war with a nuclear power. Mike Smithson"
To answer that, the answer is to provide more, much more, in the way of arms to allow the Ukranian forces to defend their country themselves. The distinction that Ben Wallace made this morning is the correct one.
In principle you're right, but we would need to think very carefully in that case at the history of similar Western efforts. The precedents aren't very good.
Another pearl from Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish. What I particularly like is that he's got some partly original thoughts on an issue that few of us think about at all:
I’m still waiting for the USA to detain then expel all the Russian millionaire sports stars currently earning a fortune in eg the NHL. Many avowedly pro-Putin.
Stick em in detention Mr Biden, freeze their assets, and send them home with prison-pyjamas and nothing else but memories. We need to thump Russian scumbags in the stomach. Again and again and again.
Chrome dome Wallace very much going on record on R4 that the Scots Guards nor any other British unit will not be kicking Russian arse. Probably for the best.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
If you are a European leader at this time, history will not judge you by your short-term responses. You will be judged by the long-term consequences of your actions. You may think you're saving yourself a billion here, a billion there, but the consequences of not acting hard now will cost much more in the longer run.
And the costs will not just be financial.
I'd take this coming from Britain a bit more seriously if we hadn't succoured Putin and his cronies in London for such a long time.
The Conservative Party has blood on its hands.
Oh, do fuck off comrade.
The person with blood on his hands is Putin.
Wait a minute, surely we Putinist enablers, appeasers, scum and all too equivocal virtue signallers also have blood on our hands?
Do you see yourself as a Putinist enabler, appeaser, scum and all too equivocal virtue signaller?
I wouldn't personally have put you in those categories, but if you think so...
Perhaps the people who habitually use these terms could draw up a list for clarification.
I don't think I've used those terms on here, personally.
Aside from 'scum'. But I'm in good company with Labour's front bench there...
Though she has quite rightly acknowledged that she was wrong to use the term.
From my memory of that, it was a fair while after, during which period she refused to admit she was wrong.
Yes, but when she had reflected, her apology was unusually sincere for a front line politician.
AFAICR it was well over a month after her initial comment. You'd think if she really thought she was wrong, she'd have apologised earlier.
I'm just applying the same sort of thinking that many do about politicians they don't like.
Sometimes a bit of reflection and time helps. Certainly in the link that I gave several prominent Tory MPs accepted her sincerity in apologising.
The genuineness of an apology is through true repentance, which includes a commitment to not making the same mistake again. To her credit Rayner has moderated her language, at least so far.
Genuineness of apology:
"Angela Rayner has stood by her description of the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum” after the Labour leader distanced himself from her words."
Chrome dome Wallace very much going on record on R4 that the Scots Guards nor any other British unit will not be kicking Russian arse. Probably for the best.
Ben Wallace, Holyrood dud, becomes Ben Wallace, Westminster dud.
An idea..... Johnson flies to Kiev and stands shoulder to shoulder with Volodymyr Zelensky at the Marinsky Palace as the Russian Tanks roll in..........
On the balcony he quotes Dickens with a subtle dig at the French 'It's a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done...."
In a single gesture it restores the Uk's reputation in Europe. Johnson's position in the UK and begins to repair the broken country that the UK has become......
(.....And and if it goes tits up all we'll have lost is the worst Prime Minister any of us can remember)
In this war everything is real: Putin’s madness and cruelty, Ukrainian victims, bombs falling on Kyiv. Only your sanctions are pretended. Those EU government’s, which blocked tough decisions (i.a. Germany, Hungary, Italy) have disgraced themselves.
An idea..... Johnson flies to Kiev and stands shoulder to shoulder with Volodymyr Zelensky at the Marinsky Palace as the Russian Tanks roll in..........
On the balcony he quotes Dickens with a subtle dig at the French 'It's a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done...."
In a single gesture it restores the Uk's reputation in Europe. Johnson's position in the UK and begins to repair the broken country that the UK has become......
.....And and if it goes tits up all we'll have lost is the worst Prime Minister any of us can remember
The downside being that gives an unacceptably high risk of Dominic Raab as acting PM.
I really really really hope that US/UK and other willing NATO partners with effective special forces are busily supplying Ukrainian army/insurgents with everything they need to get Putin bogged down in a terrible and unwinnable war.
This is a rare clear case of a good guy and a bad guy. Let us help the good guys and thereby fuck the bad guy
I suspect (I don't know) that there are advisors on the ground, and maybe even some US/UK special forces in Ukrainian clothes.
This morning Putin was pretty clear: anyone assisting Ukraine militarily was going to get nuked.
I doubt if Putin wishes to spend the rest of his life living underground and eating tinned pineapple. So, that's a hollow threat.
If he's terminally ill, perhaps he doesn't give a feck.
Hence the idiocy of the “mutually-assured destruction” paradigm: it assumes that every single custodian of the nuclear button is fit and stable. In perpetuity. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a bookie to know how profoundly unlikely that is.
1. Hiroshima 2. Nagasaki 3. Tbd
The idea that we would be made safer by giving Putin a monopoly on nuclear weapons seems quaint.
Indeed. Once nuclear weapons are invented, we go into one of four categories:
1 - A single power owns them. Outcome: we are all reliant on their goodwill; they can use them as they see fit without fear of nuclear repercussions. 2 - Two powers own them. Outcome: an uneasy balance of power between them; other powers may try to crowd under their nuclear umbrella, but realistically, only each of the two are completely covered (as the question: "will X really risk nuclear armageddon for someone else?" needs to be answered). Accidents and unstable leaders are a risk; those without are at risk; if one is fine with the other assaulting a third party, there's vastly increased risk. 3 - A few powers own them. Outcome as above, but with more chances of being covered by one or more nuclear umbrellas, but elevated risks of accidents and unstable leaders. On the other hand, far less chance of all being fine with one of them assaulting a third party. 4 - Many powers own them. We go straight to the very high risk of accidental launch or unstable leaders launching.
Numbers 1 and 4 are outright unstable. Numbers 2 and 3 are quasi-stable, with 3 being more stable than 2.
(The option of "we all give them all up and never remake them" would be the ideal, but the game theory benefit of squirreling away some nukes or at least the tech to make them quickly is far too great for that to become remotely plausible)
Another pearl from Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish. What I particularly like is that he's got some partly original thoughts on an issue that few of us think about at all:
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
It is based on the not unreasonable idea that there is a clash of civilisations, and it is a waste of time and effort fighting Putin, when our attention should be focussed on other parts of the world - China, Islamism as per my last post. However, this has led them to fundamentally misread the regime that exists in Russia. The last decade demonstrates that Putins regime cannot be bought in to any alliance with the West. It is fundamentally at odds with many values exhibited by the West, most fundamentally on basic ideas of freedom and democracy. The best hope is that Putin is overthrown; but if we are to work with any future regime, there needs to be acceptance of certain cultural differences with the Russian people that exist and are just tolerated.
The "clash of civilisations" is at best a gross over-simplification, at worst a self-fulfilling recipe for division and conflict. Within most societies there is a wide range of views and it is perfectly possible for very different societies to coexist peacefully just as it is possible for nearly identical societies to become locked in bitter conflict. Only someone who bought into the simplistic clash of civilisations narrative would assume that Putin was somehow "on our side" because he is a Christian, when he clearly despises the kind of liberal, free and pluralistic societies that we live in here in the West. Of course, because each society has a diverse range of opinions within it there are those here who also despise liberal democracy, and so perhaps it is unsurprising that Putin has found so many fans among this self-hating group.
In this war everything is real: Putin’s madness and cruelty, Ukrainian victims, bombs falling on Kyiv. Only your sanctions are pretended. Those EU government’s, which blocked tough decisions (i.a. Germany, Hungary, Italy) have disgraced themselves.
And the City and the Conservative Party ? There's certainly no much glory to be found there, I would say. The entirety of Western financial policy comes out pretty badly from the whole thing.
An idea..... Johnson flies to Kiev and stands shoulder to shoulder with Volodymyr Zelensky at the Marinsky Palace as the Russian Tanks roll in..........
On the balcony he quotes Dickens with a subtle dig at the French 'It's a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done...."
In a single gesture it restores the Uk's reputation in Europe. Johnson's position in the UK and begins to repair the broken country that the UK has become......
.....And and if it goes tits up all we'll have lost is the worst Prime Minister any of us can remember
The downside being that gives an unacceptably high risk of Dominic Raab as acting PM.
Yes - Making Raab Deputy is a bit like Nixon when he made Spiro Agnew VP. He's said "Nobody is going to assassinate me because Agnew would become President"
When do we dissect Merkels legacy? From where I’m sitting, it doesn’t look great.
Re. Social media - we’ve got idiots like Dan Hodges sharing Ukrainian vehicle locations in Kyiv at the moment, saying their Russian. Social media really is a blessing and a curse
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Depends on what you mean by "Woke". Given that homosexuals are systematically discriminated against by the Russian state, I guess your definition of "Woke" doesn't include those kinds of rights.
Which reaffirms my working hypothesis that for most people, "Woke" is just an loosely defined catchment of "things I don't approve of".
You’ve completely missed the point. Putin did a long talk where he brilliantly dissected the corrosive influence of Wokeness IN THE WEST. Nowt to do with what he enacts in Russia
His excellent understanding of how Wokeness cripples western self esteem is, no doubt, one reason he so ably exploits and foments it, on all sides, via Russian abuse of social media
Another pearl from Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish. What I particularly like is that he's got some partly original thoughts on an issue that few of us think about at all:
With respect to Mr Meeks, that essay on is well written recitation of quite standard observations about social media and how people use it. And are used by it.
Another pearl from Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish. What I particularly like is that he's got some partly original thoughts on an issue that few of us think about at all:
An idea..... Johnson flies to Kiev and stands shoulder to shoulder with Volodymyr Zelensky at the Marinsky Palace as the Russian Tanks roll in..........
On the balcony he quotes Dickens with a subtle dig at the French 'It's a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done...."
In a single gesture it restores the Uk's reputation in Europe. Johnson's position in the UK and begins to repair the broken country that the UK has become......
.....And and if it goes tits up all we'll have lost is the worst Prime Minister any of us can remember
The downside being that gives an unacceptably high risk of Dominic Raab as acting PM.
Yes - Making Raab Deputy is a bit like Nixon when he made Spiro Agnew VP. He's said "Nobody is going to assassinate me because Agnew would become President"
He didn't think that one through, did he? Once the forces of law and order had dealt with Agnew, there was no reason not to go after Nixon...
Damn gutsy people, the Ukrainians. If their resistance hastens the end of Putin in the Kremlin, then the world will owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
They stand at the opposite end of the spectrum of regard than those spineless, self-centred leaders within the EU. Today more than ever, I am relieved we are now unshackled from that moral vacuum.
Macron has performed better than Johnson, I would say personally. I can't see what lasting impact Johnson and Truss with all their arm waving have made, anywhere in this crisis.
Biden has provided accurate intelligence ; Macron has kept a channel of communication open. That's about it, as far as I can see.
I genuinely don’t understand this mad Republican admiration for Putin and his deeds
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
Putin pretends to be a Christian, is fervently nationalistic and hates gays. That's enough.
Yes, as with Trump, many people don't really follow the details - they decide on superficial evidence if someone is their sort of guy and then dismiss criticism as biased or made-up. It's like left-wingers who thought Pol Pot was a good guy until the Vietnamese - hardly right-wingers themselves - decided they'd had enough of him. And right-wingers who deplored Vietnam's intervention because they were those commies who'd caused so much trouble for the US. See Alastair's piece for more on this sort of thinking.
Most people are more or less rational, and there does come a point where they do say hell, I can't support THIS. Most of the left is now vehemently anti-Putin - all the MPs who signed the equivocal Stop the War statement have now withdrawn their support, and McDonnell said last night that he's helping organise a demo outside the Russian Embassy tomorrow. Conversely, I know Republicans who remain viscerally anti-Democrat but simply will not tolerate the idea of voting for Trump.
Comments
I'm just applying the same sort of thinking that many do about politicians they don't like.
The first is when mutinies turn into revolutions. The second rather less commonly so. It was the coup of August 1991 that turned the Soviet army against the Soviet government, not the withdrawal from Afghanistan or Eastern Europe.
In any case, the latter option could easily take years. I don't think we have that long to deal with Putin.
You were finding excuses for doing nothing until very recently. Specks and planks indeed.
I'd have thought this increases the chance of a successful insurrection.
The international goodwill towards Ukraine is enormous. Personally, I’ve not known a geopolitical event which has so united my friends and family (and they come in all stripes, from far left to hard right, from Remoaner to Ukipper). They all want Ukraine to prevail
Of course this may quickly dissipate, but it is no small thing
Sir Humphrey: 'That's easy. None. They'd spend it on conventional weapons instead.'
Also, the military always argue amongst themselves about how money should be spent. Lots of lovely money gets spent on the Trident system that other branches of the military would quite like. I tend to ignore such comments as rather self-serving.
The truth is we need to see more spending on our armed forces, and other areas of public life.
And that will require large tax hikes.
The genuineness of an apology is through true repentance, which includes a commitment to not making the same mistake again. To her credit Rayner has moderated her language, at least so far.
She is also growing into the role and might one day make a surprisingly good prime minister. A hint of a leftwing Thatcher about her
Yes I think Putin is right on Wokeness, I also think Mussolini handled the Mafia well and Hitler was great at flag design. I can still see that they are all malign tyrants who generally do - or did - bad stuff.
Farage is the same. And Salmond. Some weird fanboi worship of brutal power. Is that it? Is that all it is?
I wonder whether the value of the military kit the West has sent to Ukraine has yet exceeded the money sent to Russia for raw materials over the same period?
Just as the Russian troll farms fight both sides of the argument, it looks like the West's money is also fighting on both sides in Ukraine. Assuming this is not the intent from the West, we should stop fighting on Russia's side PDQ.
That assumes, of course, that we don't just start trading with them again as usual in a year's time.
https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1497123195752783872
Incidentally one point against Putin being potentially willing to blow up the world - if he wasn't thinking about material possessions he wouldn't have moved his yacht out of Germany.
For many it will be their first experience of combat and they are fighting a very very motivated opponent.
Discuss.
The UK is BANNING Russian aircraft from its airspace.
Russian airline Aeroflot currently operates flights between Moscow and London.
https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/1496914103205613572
Not just Aeroflot - ANY Russian aircraft.
(I’m still grieving for Barry Cryer, Tim Brooke-Taylor, Humph, Jeremy Hardy etc. I spent large chunks of yesterday guffawing my head off listening to old I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue episodes. Had to cheer myself up. The wife couldn’t understand why I was in such a good mood after such an horrific day.)
It’s like expecting Geordie or Liverpudlian troops to fire on protestors in Edinburgh if Scotland did UDI
This news is so grim. I'm still in bed, trying to muster the will to get up and go to work. I keep telling myself to stop being dramatic, Ukraine is far away, my life isn't different from what it was last week etc, but this all feels pretty dire. I'll get up, of course, but I can't recall a world event that has ever made me feel like this.
Putin is much more capable than Trump. Ultimately Trump was too inept to sufficiently subvert democracy in the US to stay in power. I admit that surprised me. Putin would not have failed in that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Katsav#Rape_and_sexual_harassment_case
Moral support is also of limited value if you can't back it up with direct involvement, and despite all the encouraging words NATO military planners understandably so far don't want to risk incineration for a non-critical interest. The strongest moral support in that instance can also be two-sided ; Zelenskiy seems to feel betrayed today.
Posts like that are why we thought she was.
To answer that, the answer is to provide more, much more, in the way of arms to allow the Ukranian forces to defend their country themselves. The distinction that Ben Wallace made this morning is the correct one.
https://www.flightradar24.com/52.63,15.2/4
Yet I'm willing to bet many Republicans would have paused, on the basis Trump isn't in power any more and Putin is a la the answer given by @LostPassword .
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/the-city-and-the-tower-the-scattering-of-the-internet-bf28fdfb403
I’m still waiting for the USA to detain then expel all the Russian millionaire sports stars currently earning a fortune in eg the NHL. Many avowedly pro-Putin.
Stick em in detention Mr Biden, freeze their assets, and send them home with prison-pyjamas and nothing else but memories. We need to thump Russian scumbags in the stomach. Again and again and again.
Forget the obsession with sanctions against oligarchs. I have a better way to hurt Putin
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1497128773262663700
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/23/obsession-sanctions-oligarchs-putin-hurt-russian-leader-ukraine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
It's clear that 'scum' is how Rayner saw large segments of society. Hopefully that may have changed.
https://twitter.com/donaldtuskEPP/status/1497120868367056896?t=5yptNZ3Qwk6LkSa9C9sT1Q&s=19
"Angela Rayner has stood by her description of the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum” after the Labour leader distanced himself from her words."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
On the balcony he quotes Dickens with a subtle dig at the French 'It's a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done...."
In a single gesture it restores the Uk's reputation in Europe. Johnson's position in the UK and begins to repair the broken country that the UK has become......
(.....And and if it goes tits up all we'll have lost is the worst Prime Minister any of us can remember)
In this war everything is real: Putin’s madness and cruelty, Ukrainian victims, bombs falling on Kyiv. Only your sanctions are pretended. Those EU government’s, which blocked tough decisions (i.a. Germany, Hungary, Italy) have disgraced themselves.
https://twitter.com/donaldtuskEPP/status/1497120868367056896
Once nuclear weapons are invented, we go into one of four categories:
1 - A single power owns them. Outcome: we are all reliant on their goodwill; they can use them as they see fit without fear of nuclear repercussions.
2 - Two powers own them. Outcome: an uneasy balance of power between them; other powers may try to crowd under their nuclear umbrella, but realistically, only each of the two are completely covered (as the question: "will X really risk nuclear armageddon for someone else?" needs to be answered). Accidents and unstable leaders are a risk; those without are at risk; if one is fine with the other assaulting a third party, there's vastly increased risk.
3 - A few powers own them. Outcome as above, but with more chances of being covered by one or more nuclear umbrellas, but elevated risks of accidents and unstable leaders. On the other hand, far less chance of all being fine with one of them assaulting a third party.
4 - Many powers own them. We go straight to the very high risk of accidental launch or unstable leaders launching.
Numbers 1 and 4 are outright unstable. Numbers 2 and 3 are quasi-stable, with 3 being more stable than 2.
(The option of "we all give them all up and never remake them" would be the ideal, but the game theory benefit of squirreling away some nukes or at least the tech to make them quickly is far too great for that to become remotely plausible)
Unilateral disarming would be bloody crazy, leaving nukes in the hands of tyrannies and leaving democracies bereft of them.
Only someone who bought into the simplistic clash of civilisations narrative would assume that Putin was somehow "on our side" because he is a Christian, when he clearly despises the kind of liberal, free and pluralistic societies that we live in here in the West. Of course, because each society has a diverse range of opinions within it there are those here who also despise liberal democracy, and so perhaps it is unsurprising that Putin has found so many fans among this self-hating group.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1497128800815128576
That’ll complicate flights to Japan & China…..wonder how long we’ll continue to be the only European country banning Russian flights….
And they say A level standards are slipping. I never had questions that hard back in 1980.
Re. Social media - we’ve got idiots like Dan Hodges sharing Ukrainian vehicle locations in Kyiv at the moment, saying their Russian. Social media really is a blessing and a curse
His excellent understanding of how Wokeness cripples western self esteem is, no doubt, one reason he so ably exploits and foments it, on all sides, via Russian abuse of social media
What I’ll never understand about Brexiteers is why you lot are such bitter winners. Where’s the joie de vivre?
When Russia invaded Ukraine last time France was reluctant to stop selling amphibious warfare ships worth nearly two billion Euro to Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Russian_purchase
Two weeks ago Macron was trying to make Ukraine back down and agree to some of the Russian demands:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/08/ukraine-pressure-bow-russian-demands-meeting-emmanuel-macron/
The last I saw this week was that he was claiming that Putin had been "duplicitous".
He sounded like a Mark who had only just noticed he'd been had.
(Yes, I am skeptical where all things Marcon are concerned.)
Most people are more or less rational, and there does come a point where they do say hell, I can't support THIS. Most of the left is now vehemently anti-Putin - all the MPs who signed the equivocal Stop the War statement have now withdrawn their support, and McDonnell said last night that he's helping organise a demo outside the Russian Embassy tomorrow. Conversely, I know Republicans who remain viscerally anti-Democrat but simply will not tolerate the idea of voting for Trump.