Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
What did we actually *do* about Salisbury, Josias?
It was odd for Putin to insist that Ukraine should really be part of Russia and then expect people to tolerate fellow Slavs - often their relations - being bombed. Putin, like most autocrats, has a residual fear of his own people, and may start to be concerned about how they might react to even more casualties of their own, brutality in Ukraine, and international condemnation.
Ukraine shares a land border with NATO and equipment can pass through to Ukrainian regular forces so long as they are fighting - and then to an anti-Russian insurgency should this conflict move to that stage. This is why it is important not to focus solely on whether Russia achieves it military objectives. It is how it holds what it can seize against civilian resistance and insurgency.
Putin reminds us that that autocracy can lead to great errors, and while democracy by no means precludes us making our own mistakes, it at least allows us opportunities to move swiftly to new leaders and new policies when that happens. Would that this now happens to Russia.
I do wish everyone on U.K. political internet (here and Twitter included) would look at the events in Ukraine outside the prism of our own domestic obsessions. I’ve seen views ranging from “if the U.K. had stopped NATO expanding then Putin would have stuck to his original dream of being an artisanal chocolatier” to “this only happened because of Brexit”. This is deeply narcissistic at best. This has very little, if anything, to do with U.K. action or inaction.
Yes, but better than looking at the cause and effect in the other direcftion - does this strengthen johnson/improve wallace';s position etc
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
And morally bankrupt. He has been banging on about drugs and homosexuality and transgenderism etc.
Remember that next time those of you on the far right have a go about being woke. You may find yourself in bed with Vladimir Putin.
Back in Alaska and the Senate more generally it is interesting that there have been nominally independent senators given just how strong is the US's two party system. Of course nominal may be what it is, but good to see at least some breakaway from official to party, and voting changes might help.
Given it's basically impossible to impose proper sanctions on Russia while NordStream1 continues to pump gas into Germany and cash to Putin, we might as well just go ahead with NS2.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
Haha. +1.
I've never heard any one of my friends mention Brexit for the last 12 months.
Please, please, please re-post this to Leon when he's next on the sauce.
\ I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
I do wish everyone on U.K. political internet (here and Twitter included) would look at the events in Ukraine outside the prism of our own domestic obsessions. I’ve seen views ranging from “if the U.K. had stopped NATO expanding then Putin would have stuck to his original dream of being an artisanal chocolatier” to “this only happened because of Brexit”. This is deeply narcissistic at best. This has very little, if anything, to do with U.K. action or inaction.
Kind of true. It does have little to with UK action and inaction but it does have plenty to do with the West being divided both collectively as a group of nations and internally within each country. UK action and inaction plays a part in that, and many of the dilemmas we have faced in the UK have their parallels in other Western countries, so by looking internally we get a reasonable picture of how the West have got into this position.
For the avoidance of doubt none of this changes it all being Putin's fault and responsibility but if the West had managed to stay as cohesive as it was in 2000 say, then this would not be happening.
Well the fact that we have a bunch of wasters running the UK who have been happily supporting Putin for years and accepting huge amounts of Russian money makes it impossible not to consider domestic politics and the rotten state it is in. This has helped Putin over the years and cannot be ignored in the overall picture. Boris and teh Tories are part of the problem.
Given it's basically impossible to impose proper sanctions on Russia while NordStream1 continues to pump gas into Germany and cash to Putin, we might as well just go ahead with NS2.
I propose giving the pipeline itself to Ukraine.
The whole point of NordStream 2 is to bypass Ukraine.
- “… electoral reform is all the rage these days.”
I’m sorry Quincel, but you can’t make such a sweeping (and contentious) opening statement and then back in up with three teensy-weensy examples from minor English-speaking jurisdictions (Maine, England and Alaska). That is so parochial it is beyond words (English majors?! - guffaw - c’mon!)
There is a whole planet out there, speaking thousands of languages. If such a sweeping statement had any basis in reality then it would be easy to cite convincing global examples.
I think you are interpreting that line more strongly than I meant it when I wrote it. The article is about Alaska and their new electoral system, that's just meant to kick off the topic. If I listed enough examples from all over the world to convince you the article would never get on to anything else.
(Although, I do think you saying that two US states don't count as 'convincing examples' is rather harsh.)
I’m easy to convince, and use the “ three examples suffices” rule a lot myself.
If you are aware of three *significant* examples worldwide of ongoing or recent reform then feel free to enlighten me.
I realise it’s only an intro, but I was disappointed by the insignificance and flimsinesses of the examples used to support your assertion. Far from “Global Britain”, Brexit seems to be drastically reducing horizons. Do we only see humans who look like and talk like us? Tragic if true.
Jesus Christ it was a slightly hyperbolic tease of an opener not some psychological symptom of Brexitisis. Not everything is about Brexit.
In Stuart's eyes, everything is about Brexit and the SNP is always on the point of victory (but never seems to quite achieve it).
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I'm a bit of a wet lettuce/liberal at heart and I'm not sure how keen I'd be to fight if my country was being invaded by a much larger force. However I'm disgusted by what has happened and I will be equally disgusted if people want to remove sanctions once their is a ceasefire or negotiated peace.
Weird - just as an example I know that Jersey are allowing Ukrainian people in Jersey to get fast track visas for family with an initial 6 month cover and not worried about how they get there - people are driving to Jersey through Europe and absolutely no objection from the govt who just want to help and have said they are following UK visa rules so I imagine there will be immense flexibility.
So whilst you think this is a zinger of an attack on the UK gov it’s probably not. It’s probably been tabled for release today for some time but otherwise might be a reminder to anyone wanting to try and take advantage of Ukrainians’ plight and play the system.
The rugby is on today. See if your friends want to go to a pub, have a few beers, laugh, maybe even get a shag and you can take a break from this constant pointless posting of things you think damage the govt.
Whilst you are having a fun day away from PB you might realise that actually life is pretty good, you are free and not being shelled and actually the govt isn’t that bad - far from perfect - but not bad, and then you might have some perspective and stop the boring cut and paste worthy of Pravda.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
You should have been here yesterday when someone was trying to use the Ukraine war to make a point about Arthur Scargill.
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Yep.
When I worked for a short while in intelligence (sorry that disappoints you MM) that was very much the prevailing view.
I admit I'm way out of touch these days, and left that behind long ago, but it did become something of a running joke.
Russian military might was vastly exaggerated. This may have changed and their intelligence and cyber warfare suggests they are a different entity now.
In a social media age it may be that the biggest variable in the use of arms in Europe, including Russia, is the willingness of mothers, wives and sisters to accept stoically the return of their men in body bags after dying for a worthless cause.
But for that the UK would have intervened in Syria in aid of Cameron's vain belief that there were coherent groups to fight with for a new liberal woke cool Syria. Parliament saved us form this, and this particular cat is now out of the bag. Afghanistan made 'Never Again In An Unwinnable Cause' permanent.
I do wish everyone on U.K. political internet (here and Twitter included) would look at the events in Ukraine outside the prism of our own domestic obsessions. I’ve seen views ranging from “if the U.K. had stopped NATO expanding then Putin would have stuck to his original dream of being an artisanal chocolatier” to “this only happened because of Brexit”. This is deeply narcissistic at best. This has very little, if anything, to do with U.K. action or inaction.
Kind of true. It does have little to with UK action and inaction but it does have plenty to do with the West being divided both collectively as a group of nations and internally within each country. UK action and inaction plays a part in that, and many of the dilemmas we have faced in the UK have their parallels in other Western countries, so by looking internally we get a reasonable picture of how the West have got into this position.
For the avoidance of doubt none of this changes it all being Putin's fault and responsibility but if the West had managed to stay as cohesive as it was in 2000 say, then this would not be happening.
Well the fact that we have a bunch of wasters running the UK who have been happily supporting Putin for years and accepting huge amounts of Russian money makes it impossible not to consider domestic politics and the rotten state it is in. This has helped Putin over the years and cannot be ignored in the overall picture. Boris and teh Tories are part of the problem.
Yes but US, Germany, France, Italy also have Russian interests and connections, economically and politically. It is the West as a whole that has put short term selfish interests ahead of the cost of controlling Russia's imperialist ambitions, not any one country.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I think he did. He’s perhaps starting to have slight doubts.
If you run a government that is entirely built on lies like Putin, don't be surprised when it turns out your generals were lying to you when they said they could overrun Kyiv in 48 hours.
I am fairly sure they could have done.
However, they seem to have been trying to minimise damage so far, presumably for political and emotional reasons (We will liberate historic Ukraine which is so much part of Russia by er, flattening it and killing all its people). They have, for example, not put forward all the soldiers they have on the border yet, just a third of them.
I do not see how Kyiv could hold for long against the full strength of the Russian army committed to seizing it at all costs, but the damage in that scenario would be enormous and even RT would have a hard time explaining it away.
That is not in any way to minimise the courage or stubbornness of the defence, or to note that the planning by Russia's military doesn't look very smart so far. But at the same time, we need to remember the Russians have constrained themselves somewhat by the approach they have taken.
I only hope they don't change their minds, but I fear they will. They can't afford not to win now, their military credibility is on the line.
Russia still has a way out, a peace agreement where it makes territorial advances and gets agreement that Ukraine doesn't join NATO. This will probably be hailed by the world as a positive step and 'peace in our time', sanctions removed, gas back on, etc etc. Win win for everyone, can kicked down the road.
I don't think Russia needs to 'win'. It only claimed its objectives were the security of certain regions in Ukraine and no NATO membership for Ukraine. It can cash out now and be ahead, and the world goes on as it did before. It is tragic and sad, but the state of the world.
It obviously wanted more or it wouldn't be trying to take out Kyiv, but it's true the stated aims were initially more limited.
The NATO is hard because no one but Putin seems to have believed membership would be granted anyway, not with an active conflict already.
The problem for him was not that Ukraine might join NATO but that it might want to join NATO. He doesn't seem to realise he is a big reason for that. He could extract official neutrality from Ukraine but unless the nation feels totally betrayed those bits not under occupation are definitely looking West even more.
If you run a government that is entirely built on lies like Putin, don't be surprised when it turns out your generals were lying to you when they said they could overrun Kyiv in 48 hours.
I am fairly sure they could have done.
However, they seem to have been trying to minimise damage so far, presumably for political and emotional reasons (We will liberate historic Ukraine which is so much part of Russia by er, flattening it and killing all its people). They have, for example, not put forward all the soldiers they have on the border yet, just a third of them.
I do not see how Kyiv could hold for long against the full strength of the Russian army committed to seizing it at all costs, but the damage in that scenario would be enormous and even RT would have a hard time explaining it away.
That is not in any way to minimise the courage or stubbornness of the defence, or to note that the planning by Russia's military doesn't look very smart so far. But at the same time, we need to remember the Russians have constrained themselves somewhat by the approach they have taken.
I only hope they don't change their minds, but I fear they will. They can't afford not to win now, their military credibility is on the line.
Russia still has a way out, a peace agreement where it makes territorial advances and gets agreement that Ukraine doesn't join NATO. This will probably be hailed by the world as a positive step and 'peace in our time', sanctions removed, gas back on, etc etc. Win win for everyone, can kicked down the road.
I don't think Russia needs to 'win'. It only claimed its objectives were the security of certain regions in Ukraine and no NATO membership for Ukraine. It can cash out now and be ahead, and the world goes on as it did before. It is tragic and sad, but the state of the world.
If they do that now, the narrative will be the Ukrainians were too tough a nut to crack and forced them to the table.
I don’t think Putin or his generals will be willing to talk for that reason alone.
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
No I think, rather, it's a good example of that political horseshoe. The two extremes of left and right, perhaps neatly encapsulated by Putin and Trump, tend to amass an illiberal following. There are a few (thankfully only a few) on here whose social and ethical attitudes align with Putin's.
In the centre are liberals who are generally more socially tolerant and progressive.
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Worth noting that the UAE, who own Man City, refused to vote in favour of the UN Security Council motion condemning the Russian invasion.
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Worth noting that the UAE, who own Man City, refused to vote in favour of the UN Security Council motion condemning the Russian invasion.
I do wish everyone on U.K. political internet (here and Twitter included) would look at the events in Ukraine outside the prism of our own domestic obsessions. I’ve seen views ranging from “if the U.K. had stopped NATO expanding then Putin would have stuck to his original dream of being an artisanal chocolatier” to “this only happened because of Brexit”. This is deeply narcissistic at best. This has very little, if anything, to do with U.K. action or inaction.
Yes, but better than looking at the cause and effect in the other direcftion - does this strengthen johnson/improve wallace';s position etc
Not that I don't do it...
FFS its a political betting site. Looking at the odds of political things happening, whatever next? Someone will start discussing cars on pistonheads, or parenting on mumsnet if we are not careful.
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Yep.
When I worked for a short while in intelligence (sorry that disappoints you MM) that was very much the prevailing view.
I admit I'm way out of touch these days, and left that behind long ago, but it did become something of a running joke.
Russian military might was vastly exaggerated. This may have changed and their intelligence and cyber warfare suggests they are a different entity now.
In a social media age it may be that the biggest variable in the use of arms in Europe, including Russia, is the willingness of mothers, wives and sisters to accept stoically the return of their men in body bags after dying for a worthless cause.
But for that the UK would have intervened in Syria in aid of Cameron's vain belief that there were coherent groups to fight with for a new liberal woke cool Syria. Parliament saved us form this, and this particular cat is now out of the bag. Afghanistan made 'Never Again In An Unwinnable Cause' permanent.
In particular Ed Miliband did, and never got the credit for doing so.
\ I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
Just "men" though. Chaps, that sort of thing.
It's a sign of the times that Wokery was your first instinct when you saw that.
Yes, women can now join frontline regiments and good luck to those that choose to do so. But even in the longer term they will likely make up < 1% of the numbers.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
The fly-on-the-wall 'life on a warship' series on C5 is worth a watch. It illustrates how the Navy has been operating as if Russia is the enemy for some time already. The work our ships are doing is impressive, but there's also a rather British amateurishness about the way the ships are commanded and operated, which makes for interesting TV. But the viewer does wonder how it would stand up if the engagements with the Russian navy were for real?
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
And morally bankrupt. He has been banging on about drugs and homosexuality and transgenderism etc.
Remember that next time those of you on the far right have a go about being woke. You may find yourself in bed with Vladimir Putin.
Only if you’re female, of course. He doesn’t approve of the other option.
- “… electoral reform is all the rage these days.”
I’m sorry Quincel, but you can’t make such a sweeping (and contentious) opening statement and then back in up with three teensy-weensy examples from minor English-speaking jurisdictions (Maine, England and Alaska). That is so parochial it is beyond words (English majors?! - guffaw - c’mon!)
There is a whole planet out there, speaking thousands of languages. If such a sweeping statement had any basis in reality then it would be easy to cite convincing global examples.
I think you are interpreting that line more strongly than I meant it when I wrote it. The article is about Alaska and their new electoral system, that's just meant to kick off the topic. If I listed enough examples from all over the world to convince you the article would never get on to anything else.
(Although, I do think you saying that two US states don't count as 'convincing examples' is rather harsh.)
I’m easy to convince, and use the “ three examples suffices” rule a lot myself.
If you are aware of three *significant* examples worldwide of ongoing or recent reform then feel free to enlighten me.
I realise it’s only an intro, but I was disappointed by the insignificance and flimsinesses of the examples used to support your assertion. Far from “Global Britain”, Brexit seems to be drastically reducing horizons. Do we only see humans who look like and talk like us? Tragic if true.
Jesus Christ it was a slightly hyperbolic tease of an opener not some psychological symptom of Brexitisis. Not everything is about Brexit.
In Stuart's eyes, everything is about Brexit and the SNP is always on the point of victory (but never seems to quite achieve it).
There’s a few here, both leave and remain, who are still obsessed with brexit. In the real world who really mentions it. No one I know.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
James Heappey MP (Armed Forces minister) pretty impressive on Sky News.
One to watch.
It has been fascinating watching Tom Tugendhat on the news. A Lieutenant-Colonel with experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and then with the civilian administration in the latter. Notably shish-kebabs the Big Dog at every opportunity on his lack of comprehension of foreign affairs. A declared candidate for leader should a contest arise. And he continues to lead from the front, detailed criticism of the PM and our woeful position.
I know that some people think Ukraine saves the Big Dog, that there can be no move against him now. But remember the facts - the PM is a bumbling incompetent cretin with no grasp for detail. Fucking up this crisis is almost as certain as the sun setting in the west later.
So could Tugendhat rise from relative obscurity and be a real challenger when a vacancy does occur - or help force one?
Boris may be a "bumbling incompetent cretin" but he is blessed with a powerful, deep voice which means he sounds both authoritative and reassuring provided he sticks to reading out speeches crafted by some combination of Guto Harri, the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.
This is the best speech I have ever heard Boris make
Still a complete and utter arsehole who should be out on his arse, apologists for him as he tries to save his fat arse by pretending to be Churchill are easily taken in.
Predictable as ever Malc
The truth will out G, propaganda cannot hide the truth.
Malc - I want Boris to go but to be honest now is not the time and whilst this crisis is ongoing we as a country must be united as anything else just provides succour to the evil Putin
That's utter rubbish though and with your logic would have kept Chamberlain on as PM after the Norway débâcle.
It’s striking how many of those folk who are forever bellowing about appeasers and enablers of Putin are never slow to make excuses for u-know-who.
Big G NorthOssetia I want Vlad to go but to be honest now is not the time and whilst this crisis is ongoing we as a country must be united as anything else just provides succour to the evil West.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I'm a bit of a wet lettuce/liberal at heart and I'm not sure how keen I'd be to fight if my country was being invaded by a much larger force. However I'm disgusted by what has happened and I will be equally disgusted if people want to remove sanctions once their is a ceasefire or negotiated peace.
I'm the opposite and, quite frankly, I'm scared. But I share your disgust. What's struck me is the uniformity of opinion on this issue across all my friends and WhatsApp groups over the last 48 hours.
Everyone recognises the time is now and we need to take concrete action.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
And morally bankrupt. He has been banging on about drugs and homosexuality and transgenderism etc.
Remember that next time those of you on the far right have a go about being woke. You may find yourself in bed with Vladimir Putin.
Only if you’re female, of course. He doesn’t approve of the other option.
I do wish everyone on U.K. political internet (here and Twitter included) would look at the events in Ukraine outside the prism of our own domestic obsessions. I’ve seen views ranging from “if the U.K. had stopped NATO expanding then Putin would have stuck to his original dream of being an artisanal chocolatier” to “this only happened because of Brexit”. This is deeply narcissistic at best. This has very little, if anything, to do with U.K. action or inaction.
Yes, but better than looking at the cause and effect in the other direcftion - does this strengthen johnson/improve wallace';s position etc
Not that I don't do it...
FFS its a political betting site. Looking at the odds of political things happening, whatever next? Someone will start discussing cars on pistonheads, or parenting on mumsnet if we are not careful.
Quite. It was just the equivalent of local papers finding a connection to a big story.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
And morally bankrupt. He has been banging on about drugs and homosexuality and transgenderism etc.
Remember that next time those of you on the far right have a go about being woke. You may find yourself in bed with Vladimir Putin.
Please don't accuse me of being on the far right again @Heathener or I'll stop engaging with you.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
You do realise that this is a betting site, and that many contributors have money riding on the clown's longevity, the identity of his replacement, and the outcomes of coming elections?
There aren't markets on the military outcomes in Ukraine (and even if there were, I doubt any of us would want to be betting on them).
Tit for tat cyber attack after we blocked Aeroflot?
No, just crap BA IT.
Coincidence then?
Righto....
Well it might be coincidence. In the case of BA which has a history of IT crashes it's perfectly possible.
Just as Anonymous is hacking Russian sites, Russia's equivalent has said it will attack Western sites in revenge. We should also not rule out state assistance on either side.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
Quite - it is absolutely grotesque - and it is coming from many who should know better. The dissonance created by that vote in 2016 will last for a generation or more I fear.
A wokery note. Ukraine (may the Lord help them) is allowing millions to leave - and who can blame the leavers - but not men from 18-60. They are being called up.
Normally in the face of this sort of sexism the BBC/Guardian/Twitterati would be leading on woke calls for men and women, as well as binaries and transitioners, to be treated identically whether they are what they are by gender, sex or both, while denouncing JK Rowling for saying that it's OK to call up men but not women for hand to hand combat in ruined cities.
Could someone update me on what I should think this week.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I'm a bit of a wet lettuce/liberal at heart and I'm not sure how keen I'd be to fight if my country was being invaded by a much larger force. However I'm disgusted by what has happened and I will be equally disgusted if people want to remove sanctions once their is a ceasefire or negotiated peace.
I'm the opposite and, quite frankly, I'm scared. But I share your disgust. What's struck me is the uniformity of opinion on this issue across all my friends and WhatsApp groups over the last 48 hours.
Everyone recognises the time is now and we need to take concrete action.
An important point being missed: Putin has spent YEARS using social media as a vital tool underpinning his craft.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
The fly-on-the-wall 'life on a warship' series on C5 is worth a watch. It illustrates how the Navy has been operating as if Russia is the enemy for some time already. The work our ships are doing is impressive, but there's also a rather British amateurishness about the way the ships are commanded and operated, which makes for interesting TV. But the viewer does wonder how it would stand up if the engagements with the Russian navy were for real?
Within the constraints of the lack of every conceivable type of equipment and materiel the RN would do just fine.
We had an Eng Off on Invincible who would never wear anything but tartan M&S slippers while at sea. Certainly indicative of a certain lack of discipline (he would have been removed from the ship in the USN) but he knew his stuff and could fix anything as long as he didn't have the appropriate tools or parts.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
Democracies will always tend to act slower than tyrannies because by their very nature they have to work through disagreements. Stepping back, it's no surprise that in the opening days of this conflict there are problems and there is sniping. Hopefully, though, we are now getting a direction of travel.
For me, by far the biggest concern on that front is the trajectory being taken by the Republicans in the US. Their embrace of Trumpism looks now to be total and irreversible. That has huge and immensely concerning implications for the UK and the rest of Europe.
If you run a government that is entirely built on lies like Putin, don't be surprised when it turns out your generals were lying to you when they said they could overrun Kyiv in 48 hours.
I am fairly sure they could have done.
However, they seem to have been trying to minimise damage so far, presumably for political and emotional reasons (We will liberate historic Ukraine which is so much part of Russia by er, flattening it and killing all its people). They have, for example, not put forward all the soldiers they have on the border yet, just a third of them.
I do not see how Kyiv could hold for long against the full strength of the Russian army committed to seizing it at all costs, but the damage in that scenario would be enormous and even RT would have a hard time explaining it away.
That is not in any way to minimise the courage or stubbornness of the defence, or to note that the planning by Russia's military doesn't look very smart so far. But at the same time, we need to remember the Russians have constrained themselves somewhat by the approach they have taken.
I only hope they don't change their minds, but I fear they will. They can't afford not to win now, their military credibility is on the line.
There is no ‘they’, though, since the ultimate decision is Putin’s alone. His internal propaganda over this invasion is already utterly threadbare compared to that over Crimea (which had broad domestic support), and a devastation of Kyiv would be much more likely to finish him than the decision to invade. His promises to ‘free’ Ukraine from its ‘corrupt’ leaders, and the completely unified Ukraine resistance have left him with a dilemma which might be insoluble.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
You do realise that this is a betting site, and that many contributors have money riding on the clown's longevity, the identity of his replacement, and the outcomes of coming elections?
There aren't markets on the military outcomes in Ukraine (and even if there were, I doubt any of us would want to be betting on them).
Not to mention that Russian interference in our democracy is once more topical owing to events in Ukraine.
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Worth noting that the UAE, who own Man City, refused to vote in favour of the UN Security Council motion condemning the Russian invasion.
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Worth noting that the UAE, who own Man City, refused to vote in favour of the UN Security Council motion condemning the Russian invasion.
+1
Yep. Shocking.
Anyone who has been to the UAE will have some idea of why that is. The hotels, souks and bars are filled with Russians. It is a hugely popular destination for them.
A wokery note. Ukraine (may the Lord help them) is allowing millions to leave - and who can blame the leavers - but not men from 18-60. They are being called up.
Normally in the face of this sort of sexism the BBC/Guardian/Twitterati would be leading on woke calls for men and women, as well as binaries and transitioners, to be treated identically whether they are what they are by gender, sex or both, while denouncing JK Rowling for saying that it's OK to call up men but not women for hand to hand combat in ruined cities.
Could someone update me on what I should think this week.
Further to that video I posted earlier of a captured Russian soldier phoning his parents: Thread: I have seen a lot of videos come out today of captured Russian troops
If this is “fake news” (I don’t think it is) the Ukrainians are many orders of magnitude better at it than the Russians.
I idly wonder if Russia’s cyber propaganda operation being concentrated (pretty effectively imo) in troll farms interacting with the impressionable all over the world has meant that it’s tin eared and lumbering when it comes to a fast moving real world situation.
What is weird is coming on here after months to talk about the dire situation in Ukraine only to see that the usual suspects are still making it all about Boris and Brexit.
You do realise that no-one normal in the real world does that, don't you?
You do realise that this is a betting site, and that many contributors have money riding on the clown's longevity, the identity of his replacement, and the outcomes of coming elections?
There aren't markets on the military outcomes in Ukraine (and even if there were, I doubt any of us would want to be betting on them).
So many reasons why going racing beats war. One small one is that you get a fair amount of agreement over who won, and betting on it is a harmless diversion for a peace loving people. BTW do Ukrainians go racing?
FIFA needs to throw Russia out of the World Cup . Poland should be awarded the tie.
They won't do it for moral reasons - this is the organisation that let Putin use the World Cup as a propaganda set-piece, after all - but they might be forced into it for practical reasons.
Poland is the first domino. Sky are reporting that the Swedes and the Czechs are likely also to refuse to play Russia, which means that FIFA will either end up awarding Russia a free pass to the tournament or having to boot them - and I think if FIFA lets the Russians in there could be a mass boycott by almost every nation in Europe, which would make a mockery of the entire event even if they try to limp on with holding it.
If the loss of broadcast revenue doesn't then bankrupt and ruin FIFA, a law suit from the Qataris should do the job.
Gianni Infantino, who received the Russian Order of Friendship from the Devil himself in 2019, is now in a right pickle. A small enough violin has never been made.
It's rather odd. Russia has lots of fuel, and none of the vehicles have travelled that far. It may be mechanical faults rather than fuel. Its easy to have large headline numbers of fighting vehicles, but keeping them in fighting order is a more complex and expensive task.
- “… electoral reform is all the rage these days.”
I’m sorry Quincel, but you can’t make such a sweeping (and contentious) opening statement and then back in up with three teensy-weensy examples from minor English-speaking jurisdictions (Maine, England and Alaska). That is so parochial it is beyond words (English majors?! - guffaw - c’mon!)
There is a whole planet out there, speaking thousands of languages. If such a sweeping statement had any basis in reality then it would be easy to cite convincing global examples.
I think you are interpreting that line more strongly than I meant it when I wrote it. The article is about Alaska and their new electoral system, that's just meant to kick off the topic. If I listed enough examples from all over the world to convince you the article would never get on to anything else.
(Although, I do think you saying that two US states don't count as 'convincing examples' is rather harsh.)
I’m easy to convince, and use the “ three examples suffices” rule a lot myself.
If you are aware of three *significant* examples worldwide of ongoing or recent reform then feel free to enlighten me.
I realise it’s only an intro, but I was disappointed by the insignificance and flimsinesses of the examples used to support your assertion. Far from “Global Britain”, Brexit seems to be drastically reducing horizons. Do we only see humans who look like and talk like us? Tragic if true.
Jesus Christ it was a slightly hyperbolic tease of an opener not some psychological symptom of Brexitisis. Not everything is about Brexit.
In Stuart's eyes, everything is about Brexit and the SNP is always on the point of victory (but never seems to quite achieve it).
There’s a few here, both leave and remain, who are still obsessed with brexit. In the real world who really mentions it. No one I know.
Not entirely true. Dog owners who travel abroad, fishermen, and farmers, still tend to mention it now and again. I expect the same is true of owners of small export/import businesses, and lorry drivers queuing on the M20.
A wokery note. Ukraine (may the Lord help them) is allowing millions to leave - and who can blame the leavers - but not men from 18-60. They are being called up.
Normally in the face of this sort of sexism the BBC/Guardian/Twitterati would be leading on woke calls for men and women, as well as binaries and transitioners, to be treated identically whether they are what they are by gender, sex or both, while denouncing JK Rowling for saying that it's OK to call up men but not women for hand to hand combat in ruined cities.
Could someone update me on what I should think this week.
In an ideal world it should take into account personal circumstances a bit. A 20 year old woman without kids being called up might be a better decision than a 60 year old man or indeed a 30 year old male single parent with responsibility for a couple of kids.
But they don't have time for all that, so are making quick and broad generalisations.
Weird - just as an example I know that Jersey are allowing Ukrainian people in Jersey to get fast track visas for family with an initial 6 month cover and not worried about how they get there - people are driving to Jersey through Europe and absolutely no objection from the govt who just want to help and have said they are following UK visa rules so I imagine there will be immense flexibility.
So whilst you think this is a zinger of an attack on the UK gov it’s probably not. It’s probably been tabled for release today for some time but otherwise might be a reminder to anyone wanting to try and take advantage of Ukrainians’ plight and play the system.
The rugby is on today. See if your friends want to go to a pub, have a few beers, laugh, maybe even get a shag and you can take a break from this constant pointless posting of things you think damage the govt.
Whilst you are having a fun day away from PB you might realise that actually life is pretty good, you are free and not being shelled and actually the govt isn’t that bad - far from perfect - but not bad, and then you might have some perspective and stop the boring cut and paste worthy of Pravda.
But he’s leading the resistance against Boris, comically renamed Bozo, if he takes a day off Boris gets off the hook. It’s his moral duty.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
Democracies will always tend to act slower than tyrannies because by their very nature they have to work through disagreements. Stepping back, it's no surprise that in the opening days of this conflict there are problems and there is sniping. Hopefully, though, we are now getting a direction of travel.
For me, by far the biggest concern on that front is the trajectory being taken by the Republicans in the US. Their embrace of Trumpism looks now to be total and irreversible. That has huge and immensely concerning implications for the UK and the rest of Europe.
The thought that Trump may make a comeback is a nightmare, but good to see yesterday's poll with Biden improving his ratings whilst Trump falls
It's rather odd. Russia has lots of fuel, and none of the vehicles have travelled that far. It may be mechanical faults rather than fuel. Its easy to have large headline numbers of fighting vehicles, but keeping them in fighting order is a more complex and expensive task.
I watched that video and it appears simply to show that the tanks are stopped. Maybe just waiting for orders?
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
The fly-on-the-wall 'life on a warship' series on C5 is worth a watch. It illustrates how the Navy has been operating as if Russia is the enemy for some time already. The work our ships are doing is impressive, but there's also a rather British amateurishness about the way the ships are commanded and operated, which makes for interesting TV. But the viewer does wonder how it would stand up if the engagements with the Russian navy were for real?
Yes, I think so.
Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when the chips are down.
- “… electoral reform is all the rage these days.”
I’m sorry Quincel, but you can’t make such a sweeping (and contentious) opening statement and then back in up with three teensy-weensy examples from minor English-speaking jurisdictions (Maine, England and Alaska). That is so parochial it is beyond words (English majors?! - guffaw - c’mon!)
There is a whole planet out there, speaking thousands of languages. If such a sweeping statement had any basis in reality then it would be easy to cite convincing global examples.
I think you are interpreting that line more strongly than I meant it when I wrote it. The article is about Alaska and their new electoral system, that's just meant to kick off the topic. If I listed enough examples from all over the world to convince you the article would never get on to anything else.
(Although, I do think you saying that two US states don't count as 'convincing examples' is rather harsh.)
I’m easy to convince, and use the “ three examples suffices” rule a lot myself.
If you are aware of three *significant* examples worldwide of ongoing or recent reform then feel free to enlighten me.
I realise it’s only an intro, but I was disappointed by the insignificance and flimsinesses of the examples used to support your assertion. Far from “Global Britain”, Brexit seems to be drastically reducing horizons. Do we only see humans who look like and talk like us? Tragic if true.
Jesus Christ it was a slightly hyperbolic tease of an opener not some psychological symptom of Brexitisis. Not everything is about Brexit.
In Stuart's eyes, everything is about Brexit and the SNP is always on the point of victory (but never seems to quite achieve it).
There’s a few here, both leave and remain, who are still obsessed with brexit. In the real world who really mentions it. No one I know.
I live in Spain and it still annoys a number of the ones who have 2 homes - but I know many of them voted for it so it's difficult to sympathise with them. However, I do sympathise with the Spanish government who would rather not have to impose the 90 day rule. Portugal have already relaxed it and I suspect ot won't hold long-term.
I know a political leader should probably never do so unless (like Zekensky) they have no alternative, but I wonder if Putin might risk a trip to the front lines at some point. Safely, of course, but like many autocrats he is incredibly sensitive to criticism and his tough self image, and Zekensky is making him look bad. Ranting in his office about drug dealers and the like. He might feel a need to drag on some fatigues and tour an area.
@KwasiKwarteng summoned BP chief Bernard Looney this afternoon to explain why it owns a 20% stake in Rosneft, which provides fuel to Russia army - Kwarteng also "uneasy" about the fact that Looney sits alongside Putin on the Russian Geographical Society board"
Crikey, that’s pretty pathetic from Kwarteng. This is all public knowledge.
A wokery note. Ukraine (may the Lord help them) is allowing millions to leave - and who can blame the leavers - but not men from 18-60. They are being called up.
Normally in the face of this sort of sexism the BBC/Guardian/Twitterati would be leading on woke calls for men and women, as well as binaries and transitioners, to be treated identically whether they are what they are by gender, sex or both, while denouncing JK Rowling for saying that it's OK to call up men but not women for hand to hand combat in ruined cities.
Could someone update me on what I should think this week.
The One Show is the latest to be denounced for daring to have JK Rowling on.
If you stay on Twitter you should get the vibe of what you are allowed to think. For the time being.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.
It's rather odd. Russia has lots of fuel, and none of the vehicles have travelled that far. It may be mechanical faults rather than fuel. Its easy to have large headline numbers of fighting vehicles, but keeping them in fighting order is a more complex and expensive task.
Logistics is harder than Putin thinks? Having fuel is one thing, getting it to where it’s needed quite another.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
That's where leadership (or the lack of it) counts. By 1937, living standards were no higher than in 1920, and were about one third of their current level. Ultimately, our leaders stepped up to the mark (after having exhausted the alternatives).
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I'm a bit of a wet lettuce/liberal at heart and I'm not sure how keen I'd be to fight if my country was being invaded by a much larger force. However I'm disgusted by what has happened and I will be equally disgusted if people want to remove sanctions once their is a ceasefire or negotiated peace.
I'm the opposite and, quite frankly, I'm scared. But I share your disgust. What's struck me is the uniformity of opinion on this issue across all my friends and WhatsApp groups over the last 48 hours.
Everyone recognises the time is now and we need to take concrete action.
An important point being missed: Putin has spent YEARS using social media as a vital tool underpinning his craft.
And in 48 hours, that tool has been smashed.
Great point. The loons on both fringes are a strikingly minuscule minority. I've been heartened by the absence of whataboutery. Of course there are a few, but they are now hyper exposed for what they are. Bots and useless idiots. Pleasantly surprised how actually united the West has been in sentiment. Even as we quibble about the practicalities. Vlad has thrown away his divide the weak West card with this. For now.
I know a political leader should probably never do so unless (like Zekensky) they have no alternative, but I wonder if Putin might risk a trip to the front lines at some point. Safely, of course, but like many autocrats he is incredibly sensitive to criticism and his tough self image, and Zekensky is making him look bad. Ranting in his office about drug dealers and the like. He might feel a need to drag on some fatigues and tour an area.
He'll get to visit the front line when the Ukrainian citizens militia turn up at the Kremlin. Putin is going to lose this war.
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
Suspect Russia told China this would be a quick and painless operation of leadership change welcomed by the Ukrainians. The longer this is shown to be completely wrong, the harder it will be for China to maintain support (and the cost will rise). For China, Putin is expendable.
It is important to remember that China's foreign policy doctrine of non interference in other territories is related to one-China, in other words other countries should not interfere in Taiwan. Putin's argument over Ukraine is not a completely comfortable one for China.
FIFA needs to throw Russia out of the World Cup . Poland should be awarded the tie.
They won't do it for moral reasons - this is the organisation that let Putin use the World Cup as a propaganda set-piece, after all - but they might be forced into it for practical reasons.
Poland is the first domino. Sky are reporting that the Swedes and the Czechs are likely also to refuse to play Russia, which means that FIFA will either end up awarding Russia a free pass to the tournament or having to boot them - and I think if FIFA lets the Russians in there could be a mass boycott by almost every nation in Europe, which would make a mockery of the entire event even if they try to limp on with holding it.
If the loss of broadcast revenue doesn't then bankrupt and ruin FIFA, a law suit from the Qataris should do the job.
Gianni Infantino, who received the Russian Order of Friendship from the Devil himself in 2019, is now in a right pickle. A small enough violin has never been made.
Oh, and UEFA should also expel Russia.
There's precedent. Chile v Soviet Union qualifier in 1973.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
The fly-on-the-wall 'life on a warship' series on C5 is worth a watch. It illustrates how the Navy has been operating as if Russia is the enemy for some time already. The work our ships are doing is impressive, but there's also a rather British amateurishness about the way the ships are commanded and operated, which makes for interesting TV. But the viewer does wonder how it would stand up if the engagements with the Russian navy were for real?
Within the constraints of the lack of every conceivable type of equipment and materiel the RN would do just fine.
We had an Eng Off on Invincible who would never wear anything but tartan M&S slippers while at sea. Certainly indicative of a certain lack of discipline (he would have been removed from the ship in the USN) but he knew his stuff and could fix anything as long as he didn't have the appropriate tools or parts.
The British make-do-and-mend that probably does make us good in a crisis, generalising horrendously. But maybe not as inclined to do things by the book and therefore less effective when everything is going to plan? I remember having qualified as a private pilot in the UK, going to California and going through the same training there; the American obsession with doing absolutely every single thing by the book even when there was no common sense reason not to cut a little corner in particular circumstances took some coming to terms with. Trying to explain "I don't need to do that now because...", which in the UK might even earn you a brownie point for actually thinking about what you were doing, always got black marks in the US.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
That's where leadership (or the lack of it) counts. By 1937, living standards were no higher than in 1920, and were about one third of their current level. Ultimately, our leaders stepped up to the mark (after having exhausted the alternatives).
Yes - it may be that for too many years the shibboleth that prosperity must always continue for everyone has made it very difficult to contemplate the alternative which has remained the norm for billions in other parts of the world.
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
I seriously think they got high on their own propaganda supply and thought they’d be welcomed in. All of them from Putin downwards. Would explain why they may be running out of fuel if they thought they could just pop into a Kyiv Shell to fill up with a cheery welcome from the attendant.
This is the beginning of a new page in the history of our states 🇺🇦 🇮🇹. #MarioDraghi in a phone conversation supported Russia's disconnection from SWIFT, the provision of defense assistance. Ukraine must become part of the #EU.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.
Even if that is true, the public desire to spend money on anything extends only as far as that money is extracted from someone who isn't them. The nanosecond any Government goes after the gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing - which is the only way we're going to make serious progress on funding any of the mountain of priorities and disasters that we've somehow got to manage all at the same time - the violent tantrum from the grey vote will be so extreme that it will run away in fright.
All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.
A fascinating reminder of the psychology of our prime minister by @RSylvesterTimes. “I’ve never met anyone who believes their own lies so much,” one interviewee says. Inside the mind of Boris Johnson — by his friends and enemies
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
There was an interesting report on FSB commissioned opinion polling in Ukraine. It's possible that they were banking on poor approval ratings for the government translating into people being unwilling to defend the country.
If you run a government that is entirely built on lies like Putin, don't be surprised when it turns out your generals were lying to you when they said they could overrun Kyiv in 48 hours.
I am fairly sure they could have done.
However, they seem to have been trying to minimise damage so far, presumably for political and emotional reasons (We will liberate historic Ukraine which is so much part of Russia by er, flattening it and killing all its people). They have, for example, not put forward all the soldiers they have on the border yet, just a third of them.
I do not see how Kyiv could hold for long against the full strength of the Russian army committed to seizing it at all costs, but the damage in that scenario would be enormous and even RT would have a hard time explaining it away.
That is not in any way to minimise the courage or stubbornness of the defence, or to note that the planning by Russia's military doesn't look very smart so far. But at the same time, we need to remember the Russians have constrained themselves somewhat by the approach they have taken.
I only hope they don't change their minds, but I fear they will. They can't afford not to win now, their military credibility is on the line.
Don’t read too much into the 1/3
That’s just classical military doctrine
30% in first wave 40% in second wave to exploit points of weakness in defence 30% in reserve
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
No I think, rather, it's a good example of that political horseshoe. The two extremes of left and right, perhaps neatly encapsulated by Putin and Trump, tend to amass an illiberal following. There are a few (thankfully only a few) on here whose social and ethical attitudes align with Putin's.
In the centre are liberals who are generally more socially tolerant and progressive.
Putin is a right wing dictator; the communists and their state-controlled economy disappeared decades back.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
The fly-on-the-wall 'life on a warship' series on C5 is worth a watch. It illustrates how the Navy has been operating as if Russia is the enemy for some time already. The work our ships are doing is impressive, but there's also a rather British amateurishness about the way the ships are commanded and operated, which makes for interesting TV. But the viewer does wonder how it would stand up if the engagements with the Russian navy were for real?
Within the constraints of the lack of every conceivable type of equipment and materiel the RN would do just fine.
We had an Eng Off on Invincible who would never wear anything but tartan M&S slippers while at sea. Certainly indicative of a certain lack of discipline (he would have been removed from the ship in the USN) but he knew his stuff and could fix anything as long as he didn't have the appropriate tools or parts.
Surely that "flexibility" is what you want in an actual conflict?
Heard on the grapevine that there are some fairly serious instructions coming along, lots of WhatsApp chat about the weather in Poland etc
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.
I think he did. He’s perhaps starting to have slight doubts.
Well he's done a very good job of making it far less wet.
I was interested in the remarks of the former Finnish PM on the news this morning. Seems like Finnland are effectively part of NATO already. I suspect there has been a big mood change in Finland recently and that the relationship may well be formalised soon.
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
There's a pretty hefty crater in that video clip. Roadside bomb?
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.
You are more optimistic than me. Cost of living is going up and taxes are seen as high. The biggest areas of spending are sacrosanct and most of the chaff has already been removed so there wont be reductions elsewhere to meaningfully create some more billions.
I see no reason the response wont still be that X is important and necessary, but being against paying for it.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
There's the other problem that putting more money into one end of the MoD doesn't necessarily result in more defence capability coming out of the other end.
The British Army budgeted 3.5bn to get 589 Ajax. So far they've spent 3bn and got 25 prototypes that don't work. Giving them another 3bn isn't going to fix anything.
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
Perfect targets for any kind of anti-tank/vehicle weapon.
IIRC in some parts of Afghanistan, the cost of delivering food and water to forward bases, when the Americans etc were there, got to the weight-in-gold level.
The US Military now have serious programs to look at *generating* fuel and water at forward bases - beamed power from satellites, moisture collection systems, Sabatier reaction etc etc. All are insanely expensive, but would be far cheaper than keeping each and every convoy safe, in such a hostile environment.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal
Ukraine shares a land border with NATO and equipment can pass through to Ukrainian regular forces so long as they are fighting - and then to an anti-Russian insurgency should this conflict move to that stage. This is why it is important not to focus solely on whether Russia achieves it military objectives. It is how it holds what it can seize against civilian resistance and insurgency.
Putin reminds us that that autocracy can lead to great errors, and while democracy by no means precludes us making our own mistakes, it at least allows us opportunities to move swiftly to new leaders and new policies when that happens. Would that this now happens to Russia.
Not that I don't do it...
Remember that next time those of you on the far right have a go about being woke. You may find yourself in bed with Vladimir Putin.
I propose giving the pipeline itself to Ukraine.
I've never heard any one of my friends mention Brexit for the last 12 months.
Please, please, please re-post this to Leon when he's next on the sauce.
They'd already announced, after the rescue, that they were moving future launches to India.
So this will cause a delay in completing the constellation. But won't be fatal.
It does speed up the end of the Russian space industry.
On the other hand, it might just be the regular crap IT, as mentioned above.
If there was anything else similar going on, we'd be more likely to know.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
p.s. Do you really have to be so snide?
So whilst you think this is a zinger of an attack on the UK gov it’s probably not. It’s probably been tabled for release today for some time but otherwise might be a reminder to anyone wanting to try and take advantage of Ukrainians’ plight and play the system.
The rugby is on today. See if your friends want to go to a pub, have a few beers, laugh, maybe even get a shag and you can take a break from this constant pointless posting of things you think damage the govt.
Whilst you are having a fun day away from PB you might realise that actually life is pretty good, you are free and not being shelled and actually the govt isn’t that bad - far from perfect - but not bad, and then you might have some perspective and stop the boring cut and paste worthy of Pravda.
But for that the UK would have intervened in Syria in aid of Cameron's vain belief that there were coherent groups to fight with for a new liberal woke cool Syria. Parliament saved us form this, and this particular cat is now out of the bag. Afghanistan made 'Never Again In An Unwinnable Cause' permanent.
He’s perhaps starting to have slight doubts.
The NATO is hard because no one but Putin seems to have believed membership would be granted anyway, not with an active conflict already.
The problem for him was not that Ukraine might join NATO but that it might want to join NATO. He doesn't seem to realise he is a big reason for that. He could extract official neutrality from Ukraine but unless the nation feels totally betrayed those bits not under occupation are definitely looking West even more.
I don’t think Putin or his generals will be willing to talk for that reason alone.
In the centre are liberals who are generally more socially tolerant and progressive.
Yep. Shocking.
Yes, women can now join frontline regiments and good luck to those that choose to do so. But even in the longer term they will likely make up < 1% of the numbers.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
Big G NorthOssetia
I want Vlad to go but to be honest now is not the time and whilst this crisis is ongoing we as a country must be united as anything else just provides succour to the evil West.
https://news.sky.com/story/british-airways-suffers-major-outage-leading-to-flight-cancellations-but-says-it-wasnt-a-cyber-attack-12551777
Everyone recognises the time is now and we need to take concrete action.
Hope that's clear.
There aren't markets on the military outcomes in Ukraine (and even if there were, I doubt any of us would want to be betting on them).
Normally in the face of this sort of sexism the BBC/Guardian/Twitterati would be leading on woke calls for men and women, as well as binaries and transitioners, to be treated identically whether they are what they are by gender, sex or both, while denouncing JK Rowling for saying that it's OK to call up men but not women for hand to hand combat in ruined cities.
Could someone update me on what I should think this week.
And in 48 hours, that tool has been smashed.
We had an Eng Off on Invincible who would never wear anything but tartan M&S slippers while at sea. Certainly indicative of a certain lack of discipline (he would have been removed from the ship in the USN) but he knew his stuff and could fix anything as long as he didn't have the appropriate tools or parts.
For me, by far the biggest concern on that front is the trajectory being taken by the Republicans in the US. Their embrace of Trumpism looks now to be total and irreversible. That has huge and immensely concerning implications for the UK and the rest of Europe.
His internal propaganda over this invasion is already utterly threadbare compared to that over Crimea (which had broad domestic support), and a devastation of Kyiv would be much more likely to finish him than the decision to invade.
His promises to ‘free’ Ukraine from its ‘corrupt’ leaders, and the completely unified Ukraine resistance have left him with a dilemma which might be insoluble.
Poland is the first domino. Sky are reporting that the Swedes and the Czechs are likely also to refuse to play Russia, which means that FIFA will either end up awarding Russia a free pass to the tournament or having to boot them - and I think if FIFA lets the Russians in there could be a mass boycott by almost every nation in Europe, which would make a mockery of the entire event even if they try to limp on with holding it.
If the loss of broadcast revenue doesn't then bankrupt and ruin FIFA, a law suit from the Qataris should do the job.
Gianni Infantino, who received the Russian Order of Friendship from the Devil himself in 2019, is now in a right pickle. A small enough violin has never been made.
Oh, and UEFA should also expel Russia.
But they don't have time for all that, so are making quick and broad generalisations.
Ordinary people can do extraordinary things when the chips are down.
I’m hearing BP has been told to sell
If you stay on Twitter you should get the vibe of what you are allowed to think. For the time being.
Pleasantly surprised how actually united the West has been in sentiment. Even as we quibble about the practicalities.
Vlad has thrown away his divide the weak West card with this. For now.
Another Russian supply convoy wiped out.
The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?
It is important to remember that China's foreign policy doctrine of non interference in other territories is related to one-China, in other words other countries should not interfere in Taiwan. Putin's argument over Ukraine is not a completely comfortable one for China.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1497508211951349761
Then again....
This is an important change by Italy bringing Russia rejection from the system nearer
https://twitter.com/zoyashef/status/1497378894529589250
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1497502946480869378
All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7964b540-933c-11ec-bcf4-9dde9b8243da?shareToken=40d53ed15ff73615c1eab46443ee4c89
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraine-through-russias-eyes
That’s just classical military doctrine
30% in first wave
40% in second wave to exploit points of weakness in defence
30% in reserve
Heard on the grapevine that there are some fairly serious instructions coming along, lots of WhatsApp chat about the weather in Poland etc
I was interested in the remarks of the former Finnish PM on the news this morning. Seems like Finnland are effectively part of NATO already. I suspect there has been a big mood change in Finland recently and that the relationship may well be formalised soon.
I see no reason the response wont still be that X is important and necessary, but being against paying for it.
The British Army budgeted 3.5bn to get 589 Ajax. So far they've spent 3bn and got 25 prototypes that don't work. Giving them another 3bn isn't going to fix anything.
IIRC in some parts of Afghanistan, the cost of delivering food and water to forward bases, when the Americans etc were there, got to the weight-in-gold level.
The US Military now have serious programs to look at *generating* fuel and water at forward bases - beamed power from satellites, moisture collection systems, Sabatier reaction etc etc. All are insanely expensive, but would be far cheaper than keeping each and every convoy safe, in such a hostile environment.