Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The Ukranian Crisis – Day 5 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,827
edited March 2022 in General
The Ukranian Crisis – Day 5 – politicalbetting.com

The info I am getting is that many Russian soldiers are reluctant to fight their cousins. Add to that the oligarchs being hit and will want revenge — it feels like Putin's overreach will be the end of him.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Options
    First.
  • Options
    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,948
    edited February 2022
    Here's a chart that should cheer us all up.



  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643
    What's the deal with the Raab story? Haven't heard that one.
  • Options
    And this one


  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    An example of this?

    A thread on Russia

    It will be becoming clear to those around Putin, the first and second tier of ‘siloviki’ (security apparatus), oligarchs and technocrats that make up the ‘greater Kremlin’, that whatever happens with this war,

    https://twitter.com/ggatehouse/status/1498270828844273669

    Sanctioned Russian aluminium tycoon Oleg Deripaska calls for the overhaul of Russia's entire economic system. "We can't sit this out like we did in 2014. It's necessary to change economic policy, we need to end this who state capitalism thing."
    https://twitter.com/dasha_reuters/status/1498265311207903233
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643

    Here's a chart that should cheer us all up.



    Collapse in the rouble affects your everyday Russian. Not sure how much power they have.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    What's the deal with the Raab story? Haven't heard that one.

    Dominic Raab accepted £25,000 from ex-Russian banker whose money was shunned by Prince Charles' charitable foundation

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10196913/Dominic-Raab-accepted-25-000-ex-Russian-banker.html
  • Options
    ThePoliticalPartyThePoliticalParty Posts: 446
    edited February 2022
    Liz Trussticles must be a diplomat's nightmare
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Here's a chart that should cheer us all up.



    Collapse in the rouble affects your everyday Russian. Not sure how much power they have.
    I'm hoping it impacts the Russian Oligarchs who then have words with Putin to oust him.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc
  • Options
    Curse of the new thread.

    Entirely by accident I discovered a Kharkiv born Ukrainian photographer a couple of months ago, Boris Mikhailov. A lot of his pictures of Kharkiv and its people reminded me of my beloved Glasgow, a slight note of Raymond Depardon and his seminal photos of Glasgow from 1980. Worth a look if that sort of thing interests you, quite an insight into the post Soviet world in the region in any case.

    This could be from down The Barras at any time in the last 50 years.


  • Options
    Russia is afraid of Liz Truss?!! :smiley:
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a chart that should cheer us all up.



    Collapse in the rouble affects your everyday Russian. Not sure how much power they have.
    I'm hoping it impacts the Russian Oligarchs who then have words with Putin to oust him.
    Do they hold assets in Roubles?
    Not much I would have thought.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,632
    IshmaelZ said:

    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc

    Yes, Putin's former mate wasn't very encouraging in that score ... he's "a very serious person who does what he says".
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Liz Trussticles must be a diplomat's nightmare

    She has just explicitly moved the world closer to nuclear war. not just the diplomats who have to worry about her.

    And this after her disastrous Moscow trip, and she still has a chorus of defenders on here. Can only assume she is the "type" for a certain demographic of elderly gent
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,509
  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    What's the deal with the Raab story? Haven't heard that one.

    Dominic Raab accepted £25,000 from ex-Russian banker whose money was shunned by Prince Charles' charitable foundation

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10196913/Dominic-Raab-accepted-25-000-ex-Russian-banker.html
    Why do people want Dominic Raab to give some dodgy Russian £25,000?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643
    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,672

    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.

    Too late for Farage now though. His earlier support cannot and should not be forgotten.
    In a sane American electorate, ditto Trump.

    However....
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc

    According to our Cold War films, whitewash the windows, take the door off its hinges, and hide under that.

    Guidance, I have always assumed, to ensure that people died busy rather than in mass panic.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    Government sources are playing down the chances of Patel announcing specific new measures for Ukrainian refugees this afternoon. They say to expect a more broad statement about a fresh package of support with the details coming later this week.
    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1498292570434293767
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,509
    However, here's some words from the BBC which help explain:

    Dozens of civilians have been killed and hundreds more injured during heavy Russian shelling of the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, Ukrainian officials say.

    Anton Herashchenko, an adviser to Kyiv's interior minister, wrote on Facebook that Moscow's troops had bombarded residential areas with Grad missiles, saying: "Dozens have been killed and hundreds wounded!

    ""The whole world must see this horror! Death to the occupiers!"

    "It is not possible at this stage to say exactly how many civilians have been killed so far. The UN Human Rights chief Michelle Bachelet said earlier today that at least 102 civilians had been killed, with a further 304 people injured.

    "Most of these civilians were killed by explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multi-launch rocket systems, and air strikes. The real figures are, I fear, considerably higher," Bachlet said.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,716
    edited February 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    I sometimes favour the kind of unorthodox concepts often immediately dismissed as nonsense in the modern world, or at least at times, I have what I think is a logically grounded interest in them.

    A global "psychic" effort to help remove or or kill him would certainly do no harm, if nothing else.
  • Options

    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.

    As interesting is where he's getting his 'info' on Russian soldiers. Perhaps some of them have clubbed together and contacted him on Cameo to get him to say Vlad's a wanker.
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,181
    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    I can see a nuclear strike against Lviv, not technically an attack on NATO, but within 200km of 4/5 NATO countries.
  • Options
    Shadow Chancellor under investigation by Katherine Stone apparently
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    Somebody made a good point, it isn't just green policy that's preventing fracking in the UK, its nimby-ism. Just as everybody supports other people paying higher taxes, so everybody supports cheaper gas drawn from fields near others.

    To make it work, the government needs incentives for people to agree for their areas to be fracked.
  • Options
    I've been asked if I've started writing for The Daily Telegraph, this little nugget is mentioned in an article about the Carabao Cup final.

    The match felt like it was partaking in 'edging' (google it, if you are not at work) with all the excitement delayed indefinitely.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/28/laugh-carabao-cup-final-funniest-football-match-living-memory/

    Seriously, don't google it on a work machine, just head over to Urban Dictionary.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    If the Russians are reduced to "Liz Truss made me do it" then it shows how weak Russia is.

    Zelenskyy has been truly heroic but Boris, Truss, Biden, Macron and now even Olaf plus many more have all had a role to play in this conflict and the West is standing up to Putin brilliantly.

    For someone whose MO for decades was to turn the West against each other, Putin had completely screwed up and United the West against a common adversary: him.

    This "Liz Truss made me do it" stuff is disingenuous nonsense. What is the subtext: Don't they realise that she is just an air headed little woman who does photoshoots? I mean, is she that, or FS? If she is FS isn't the fact that a stupid thing she says - a thing so stupid that even she realised and attempted to resile from it - draws a threat of nuclear war from someone who can make good on it, of no concern at all?
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,044

    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.

    Too late for Farage now though. His earlier support cannot and should not be forgotten.
    But his conversion should be welcomed.
    As Leon pointed out earlier, humans can go through contortions that would make a gymnast wince in order to maintain an illusion of consistency.
    We shouldn't discount someone's views because they previously thought something else. "I've now changed my mind" shouldn't be an admission of defeat either here or in wider public life.
  • Options
    Bulgaria’s prime minister has demanded the dismissal of his defense minister, for taking a soft line on Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. The political showdown exposes Bulgaria as a key front line in Moscow’s push for influence in the EU.

    https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1498295455343644677
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    eek said:

    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.

    Putin doesn't have the money to pay him anymore. Have you seen how much more expensive Farage is today given that Putin has to pay in Euros.
    Potential libel alert...
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,044

    IshmaelZ said:

    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc

    According to our Cold War films, whitewash the windows, take the door off its hinges, and hide under that.

    Guidance, I have always assumed, to ensure that people died busy rather than in mass panic.
    In four minutes?!
  • Options
    VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,456

    IshmaelZ said:

    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc

    According to our Cold War films, whitewash the windows, take the door off its hinges, and hide under that.

    Guidance, I have always assumed, to ensure that people died busy rather than in mass panic.
    I remember reading When the wind blows by Raymond Biggs. https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/when-wind-blows-raymond-briggs-jimmy-murakami

  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    MISTY said:

    Heathener said:

    MISTY said:

    Heathener said:

    MISTY said:

    eek said:

    Missed this earlier but we now have someone else to blame

    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1497975596294361089
    Ron Filipkowski
    @RonFilipkowski
    Steve Bannon brings on his “International Editor” to say that Greta Thunberg is responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    So it's all Greta's fault.

    The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.

    In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.

    Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
    I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.

    This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
    You really don't and I suspect you know that.

    No you really do and I suspect you know that.
    Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.

    I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
    It is certainly out there that's for sure.
    Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
    Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas.
    Surely the folk to blame are the ones who have said, progressively.
    Climate change doesn't exist/ isn't important/there's nowt we can do anyways.
    So keep flying, driving and denying subsidies for windmills. And planning permission. And don't you dare put taxes on any of it.
    It doesn't.

    What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
    That's an entirely different argument.
    If we want to not rely on foreign energy it needs to be multi-pronged.
    That means both increased domestic supply, and lower domestic demand.
    It needs more nuclear, renewables, and drilling.
    Less flying, driving and thermostats turned down. Folk need to be wearing jumpers in the living room.
    All of this and more. And we'd still need to import far into the future.
    None of which makes it Greta's fault in the slightest. Which I realise isn't what you were arguing. But was where I started.
    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.
    We have more than enough hydrocarbons *if* we had gotten serious about the transition and gotten on with it! It’s the loony elements of the conservative movement who keep slowing things down.
    This is simply factually incorrect.

    We don't even have enough hydrocarbons for today without having to pay the Sheikhs and Putin etc let alone for the entire transition.

    We need to invest in extracting our own hydrocarbons to uncouple ourselves from unsavoury overseas characters as an interim solution and invest in long-term zero carbon solutions.

    The problem with you and your style is you let the fictional, idealised perfect be the enemy of the good but realistic option.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,632

    Interesting that Putin has lost his apologist Farage.

    Too late for Farage now though. His earlier support cannot and should not be forgotten.
    In a sane American electorate, ditto Trump.

    However....
    Absolutely no sign of sanity - he's up in recent polling:
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/27/cpac-straw-poll-trump-desantis-00012138

    Looks as though they buy the 'it wouldn't have happened if I were President' illogic.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Goodness me. You have lived how many decades in a world of nuclear weapons, and not worked out the most basic implications of their existence?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,653
    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    Yes. He is right.

    Imagine you’re Putin. You’re losing. Or the only way you can win is by grotesque brutality. The west is already United against you.

    Then you might as well go the whole hog and launch a tactical nuke on some medium sized Ukrainian city. Instantly terrorising the entire country, winning the war in a stroke, striking deep fear into the west, and you kind of gain everything

    The madman theory. I can easily see him doing it. And how would we respond? We would not fire nukes back
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,300

    Here's a chart that should cheer us all up.



    Time to move into metal....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBUYG6_YMI
  • Options
    “Zero COVID” going well:

    Hong Kong's deaths/million chart doing that thing where you think you should put it on a log scale but then realise it's already on a log scale.
    Doubling time ~48 hours.
    Leading indicator of cases - on similar trajectory.


    https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1498266097161846791
  • Options
    MISTY said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    Somebody made a good point, it isn't just green policy that's preventing fracking in the UK, its nimby-ism. Just as everybody supports other people paying higher taxes, so everybody supports cheaper gas drawn from fields near others.

    To make it work, the government needs incentives for people to agree for their areas to be fracked.
    In case you've missed it, my attitude to NIMBYs is long-established. I have as little respect for NIMBYs here as I do anywhere and they would if it were up to me get the exact same response as I'd give them elsewhere. Fuck NIMBYs.

    However incentivising areas that get fracked is a very good idea, and is what the Americans have done very successfully.
  • Options

    IshmaelZ said:

    WATO - surge in googling of What do you do in a nuclear war etc

    According to our Cold War films, whitewash the windows, take the door off its hinges, and hide under that.

    Guidance, I have always assumed, to ensure that people died busy rather than in mass panic.
    I remember reading When the wind blows by Raymond Biggs. https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/when-wind-blows-raymond-briggs-jimmy-murakami

    Ugh. The film version of that, plus Threads, are really things to stay the hell away from at the moment. They haunted me enough when it didn’t feel as close as it does right now.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,758
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    Yes. He is right.

    Imagine you’re Putin. You’re losing. Or the only way you can win is by grotesque brutality. The west is already United against you.

    Then you might as well go the whole hog and launch a tactical nuke on some medium sized Ukrainian city. Instantly terrorising the entire country, winning the war in a stroke, striking deep fear into the west, and you kind of gain everything

    The madman theory. I can easily see him doing it. And how would we respond? We would not fire nukes back
    We wouldn't even nuke back if they hit Turkey (NATO), I reckon.

    Anyway, I think Putin can achieve this kind of impact without nukes if he does a full artillery bombardment/chemical attack on Kharkiv.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 78,069
    edited February 2022

    “Zero COVID” going well:

    Hong Kong's deaths/million chart doing that thing where you think you should put it on a log scale but then realise it's already on a log scale.
    Doubling time ~48 hours.
    Leading indicator of cases - on similar trajectory.


    https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1498266097161846791

    South Korea, the gold standard of COVID response, 150k cases a day. NZ also suffering significant outbreaks now.

    Omicron you can't beat it, unless you go Viagra hard lockdown for month at a time.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
  • Options
    Swiss adopt EU sanctions against Russia
  • Options
    Why has Farage changed sides?

    Is his fee denominated in roubles?
  • Options
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
    But we shouldn't make it less convenient to drive or fly, we shouldn't cease to invest in roads. Making it inconvenient to drive or fly does absolutely nothing to save the planet and is pure self-flagellation masochism while China etc will continue to drive and fly because they're not certifiably insane.

    What we should be doing is investing in new technologies so that driving and flying is clean and that we have been doing very well. Making cars progressively more fuel efficient and cleaner to the point zero-carbon driving is a realistic option - and that will require roads.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    BREAKING:
    It’s official - 🇺🇦 Snake Island sailors are alive, Navy confirms.
    They were taken prisoner by Russia.

    https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1498266613002424325

    if not already noted
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    Too fucking late, chaps...

    Breaking: The International Olympic Committee has called on sports organisations to exclude all Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials from international events
    https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/1498299162508603394
  • Options

    Why has Farage changed sides?

    Is his fee denominated in roubles?

    Farage positioning recently has been quite strange. He went all anti-vax, when surely his core demographic are oldies who were shit scared of the COVID and couldn't get jabbed fast enough.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,632
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    Yes. He is right.

    Imagine you’re Putin. You’re losing. Or the only way you can win is by grotesque brutality. The west is already United against you.

    Then you might as well go the whole hog and launch a tactical nuke on some medium sized Ukrainian city. Instantly terrorising the entire country, winning the war in a stroke, striking deep fear into the west, and you kind of gain everything

    The madman theory. I can easily see him doing it. And how would we respond? We would not fire nukes back
    Telling Putin we wouldn't put NATO troops in Ukraine currently looks like a mistake. Maybe if we had done the worst we'd be suffering would be gas shortages.

    Perhaps the West (US/UK/France) ought to privately make clear to Putin that we would fire back with nukes if he uses them in Ukraine, to deter him from that action.
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    MISTY said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    Somebody made a good point, it isn't just green policy that's preventing fracking in the UK, its nimby-ism. Just as everybody supports other people paying higher taxes, so everybody supports cheaper gas drawn from fields near others.

    To make it work, the government needs incentives for people to agree for their areas to be fracked.
    In case you've missed it, my attitude to NIMBYs is long-established. I have as little respect for NIMBYs here as I do anywhere and they would if it were up to me get the exact same response as I'd give them elsewhere. Fuck NIMBYs.

    However incentivising areas that get fracked is a very good idea, and is what the Americans have done very successfully.
    There's some evidence that the UK tried the same by offering councils affected a right to levy taxes on drillers, but you could see how even that might not go down well with some voters - who might prefer direct compensation.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,887

    Swiss adopt EU sanctions against Russia

    And Singapore too.

    Not sure about the British Overseas Territories but I would assume they are covered by UK sanctions. That Pretty much leaves UAE and Hong Kong as major trading entrepots where funds and commodity transactions can still flow for Russian businesses, and a collection of smaller hubs e.g. Panama.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    Switzerland just sanctioned Russia and closed it’s airspace to Russian aircraft https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1498293462898294784/photo/1
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,887

    Why has Farage changed sides?

    Is his fee denominated in roubles?

    Farage positioning recently has been quite strange. He went all anti-vax, when surely his core demographic are oldies who were shit scared of the COVID and couldn't get jabbed fast enough.
    Grifter, innit
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,632
    Michael Flynn wrote another op-ed for Russia, saying Putin has "legitimate security concerns."
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PiperK/status/1498113706693214208
  • Options
    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Ask yourself this question, Asian.

    If Hitler had had the bomb, would he have used it to destroy the rest of the world as he faced certain defeat?

    Next question. If Hitler, why not Putin?
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
    But we shouldn't make it less convenient to drive or fly, we shouldn't cease to invest in roads. Making it inconvenient to drive or fly does absolutely nothing to save the planet and is pure self-flagellation masochism while China etc will continue to drive and fly because they're not certifiably insane.

    What we should be doing is investing in new technologies so that driving and flying is clean and that we have been doing very well. Making cars progressively more fuel efficient and cleaner to the point zero-carbon driving is a realistic option - and that will require roads.
    What? How does not flying fail to reduce carbon output?

    When I were a lad flying anywhere cost more NOMINAL than it does now. Nominal. We lived.

    You are the most complete cakeist imaginable. Carbon to be reduced in a way which has zero impact on you personally because yay, teknologee, houses to be built everywhere to offset this conspiracy of the elderly against you but Cumbria is your holiday destination of choice, and not, I am guessing, to enjoy all the lovely new housing estates.
  • Options

    Why has Farage changed sides?

    Is his fee denominated in roubles?

    Farage positioning recently has been quite strange. He went all anti-vax, when surely his core demographic are oldies who were shit scared of the COVID and couldn't get jabbed fast enough.
    Farage has clearly become obsessed with Trump and the American hard right. That blurred his perspective of what made him popular over here.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,509
    MISTY said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    Somebody made a good point, it isn't just green policy that's preventing fracking in the UK, its nimby-ism. Just as everybody supports other people paying higher taxes, so everybody supports cheaper gas drawn from fields near others.

    To make it work, the government needs incentives for people to agree for their areas to be fracked.
    Might see Nicola Sturgeon back-pedalling over North Sea oil and gas. Would cause ructions with the Greens, but hey, country comes first.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    Lord Lebedev - member of the Lords and owner of Evening Standard - has written an open letter to President Putin in the paper: "I plead with you to use today’s negotiations to bring this terrible conflict in Ukraine to an end"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60542877/page/2
  • Options
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    Somebody made a good point, it isn't just green policy that's preventing fracking in the UK, its nimby-ism. Just as everybody supports other people paying higher taxes, so everybody supports cheaper gas drawn from fields near others.

    To make it work, the government needs incentives for people to agree for their areas to be fracked.
    In case you've missed it, my attitude to NIMBYs is long-established. I have as little respect for NIMBYs here as I do anywhere and they would if it were up to me get the exact same response as I'd give them elsewhere. Fuck NIMBYs.

    However incentivising areas that get fracked is a very good idea, and is what the Americans have done very successfully.
    There's some evidence that the UK tried the same by offering councils affected a right to levy taxes on drillers, but you could see how even that might not go down well with some voters - who might prefer direct compensation.
    Could be a mixture but direct payment is morally right and is of course more effective as a "bribe". In fact for all planning decisions where there is a negative impact on residents the gainer should pay compensation to the losers. That even applies to individual households building an extension that cuts out some light to neighbours, they should pay a suitable level of compensation if permission is granted.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,643
    edited February 2022

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
    But we shouldn't make it less convenient to drive or fly, we shouldn't cease to invest in roads. Making it inconvenient to drive or fly does absolutely nothing to save the planet and is pure self-flagellation masochism while China etc will continue to drive and fly because they're not certifiably insane.

    What we should be doing is investing in new technologies so that driving and flying is clean and that we have been doing very well. Making cars progressively more fuel efficient and cleaner to the point zero-carbon driving is a realistic option - and that will require roads.
    Nice pivot there.
    I was talking about reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources. I didn't mention saving the planet. No one suggested stopping flying or driving except you. I'm on about ways to reduce demand as part of a mix.
    Are you honestly arguing that aiming to become a net zero importer of energy is a total supply side issue? That demand can, and indeed should, keep rising utterly unchecked? I agree about technology, but that's a medium term issue.
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
    But we shouldn't make it less convenient to drive or fly, we shouldn't cease to invest in roads. Making it inconvenient to drive or fly does absolutely nothing to save the planet and is pure self-flagellation masochism while China etc will continue to drive and fly because they're not certifiably insane.

    What we should be doing is investing in new technologies so that driving and flying is clean and that we have been doing very well. Making cars progressively more fuel efficient and cleaner to the point zero-carbon driving is a realistic option - and that will require roads.
    What? How does not flying fail to reduce carbon output?

    When I were a lad flying anywhere cost more NOMINAL than it does now. Nominal. We lived.

    You are the most complete cakeist imaginable. Carbon to be reduced in a way which has zero impact on you personally because yay, teknologee, houses to be built everywhere to offset this conspiracy of the elderly against you but Cumbria is your holiday destination of choice, and not, I am guessing, to enjoy all the lovely new housing estates.
    It being somewhat more inconvenient or expensive to be flying may reduce carbon emissions marginally, but so would killing yourself. What it does nothing for is saving the planet from climate change because any reduction would be an utterly inconsequential rounding error of a change.

    You may laugh at "teknologee" but it only shows you to be a rather stupid idiot in doing so, technology is, was and remains the only viable solution to this crisis.

    Only going on international holidays once a year does nothing to change climate change, especially when China is opening a new airport every week. Developing clean fuel technologies and exporting them around the globe absolutely does on the other hand.

    Technology is key to this. Everything else, unless its feeding into technology (eg taxing externalities so people pay for the cleaner tech) does not.
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    Government sources are playing down the chances of Patel announcing specific new measures for Ukrainian refugees this afternoon. They say to expect a more broad statement about a fresh package of support with the details coming later this week.
    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1498292570434293767

    Boris hoping for a ceasefire to bail him out?
  • Options

    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Ask yourself this question, Asian.

    If Hitler had had the bomb, would he have used it to destroy the rest of the world as he faced certain defeat?

    Next question. If Hitler, why not Putin?
    If NATO troops were outside the Kremlin, maybe.
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    Liz Trussticles must be a diplomat's nightmare

    She has just explicitly moved the world closer to nuclear war. not just the diplomats who have to worry about her.

    And this after her disastrous Moscow trip, and she still has a chorus of defenders on here. Can only assume she is the "type" for a certain demographic of elderly gent
    Dunno about that but I had a nibble at 150/1. Not sure why: probably meant to back Rishi and pressed the wrong button.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT. By @BartholomewRoberts

    I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.

    @Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.

    The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.

    Dixiedean:

    One may say the same about those who have fought tooth and nail to prevent anything to restrict the demand side.
    We hear surprisingly little about that from the other side.
    It's going to take both to get anywhere near.

    What other side?

    Those fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions are a myth that haven't existed for decades. In the past decade we've gone from a plurality of electricity coming from coal (2012) to next to none.

    In the past decade we've gone from next to no wind energy to developing it as fast as is pretty reasonably possible.

    Carbon emissions are falling fast and only lunatics are opposed to that but those are now largely invented shadows not real people.

    What is real is the objections to fracking, to Cambo, to exploration and extraction in the North Sea etc.
    There has been next to no talk of making it less convenient or cheap to drive or fly. Where we feel like it when we feel all Ike it. We should build roads not subsidise public transport.
    There's been an awful lot of that.
    That will have to come. If we are to get anywhere near not relying on foreign energy sources.
    But we shouldn't make it less convenient to drive or fly, we shouldn't cease to invest in roads. Making it inconvenient to drive or fly does absolutely nothing to save the planet and is pure self-flagellation masochism while China etc will continue to drive and fly because they're not certifiably insane.

    What we should be doing is investing in new technologies so that driving and flying is clean and that we have been doing very well. Making cars progressively more fuel efficient and cleaner to the point zero-carbon driving is a realistic option - and that will require roads.
    Nice pivot there.
    I was talking about reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources. I didn't mention saving the planet. No one suggested stopping flying or driving except you. I'm on about ways to reduce demand as part of a mix.
    Are you honestly arguing that aiming to become a net zero importer of energy is a total supply side issue? That demand can, and indeed should, keep rising utterly unchecked? I agree about technology, but that's a medium term issue.
    In the first place, what do you mean "keep rising"?

    Demand has been falling for years. How do you measure demand as rising?

    Demand should continue to fall, as it already is, but in the interim yes the solution needs to be on the supply side in addition to what we're already doing on the demand side.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,031

    Scott_xP said:

    Government sources are playing down the chances of Patel announcing specific new measures for Ukrainian refugees this afternoon. They say to expect a more broad statement about a fresh package of support with the details coming later this week.
    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1498292570434293767

    Boris hoping for a ceasefire to bail him out?
    Pass - but it's really simple - there is a war with refugees and we aren't even let people bring their own family members to the UK....
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,355
    edited February 2022
    I remember seeing a leaflet in a local pub giving advice on what to do when the four-minute warning went. Number one was clear the glassware from the tables. Number nine was bend over, and number ten was kiss your arse goodbye.

    During the Cuban missile crisis, I remember going to bed in late October thinking I hadn't quite made it to my teens. But at least we had adults in charge then. Vlad's a seven-year-old having a temper tantrum.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,038
    Mulling over a comment from @malcolmg on the last thread. Why does he think I’m a Tory? Is this a common misapprehension?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,632
    A reminder that (just four days ago!) Laura Ingraham referred to Zelensky’s passionate plea for peace to the Russian people as a “pathetic display” from a “defeated man” while on the phone with Trump.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1498096296619565058
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,031
    Scott_xP said:

    Too fucking late, chaps...

    Breaking: The International Olympic Committee has called on sports organisations to exclude all Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials from international events
    https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/1498299162508603394

    Covers the Paralympics but it gives FIFA a dilemma as they wanted to use the old rules.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    EXCLUSIVE: Two influential Middle Eastern wealth funds are planning to hold on to Russian assets worth billions of dollars—for now
    https://trib.al/xjOAYNI
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Liz Trussticles must be a diplomat's nightmare

    She has just explicitly moved the world closer to nuclear war. not just the diplomats who have to worry about her.

    And this after her disastrous Moscow trip, and she still has a chorus of defenders on here. Can only assume she is the "type" for a certain demographic of elderly gent
    Dunno about that but I had a nibble at 150/1. Not sure why: probably meant to back Rishi and pressed the wrong button.
    I backed at 100/1 laid at 5/1. No idea why the back, I think s.o. tipped her and I had no clear idea who she was.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,632
    edited February 2022
    DougSeal said:

    Mulling over a comment from @malcolmg on the last thread. Why does he think I’m a Tory? Is this a common misapprehension?

    Yes, only the other day I thought Malcolm was a Tory.
    It's temporary condition, though.
  • Options

    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Ask yourself this question, Asian.

    If Hitler had had the bomb, would he have used it to destroy the rest of the world as he faced certain defeat?

    Next question. If Hitler, why not Putin?
    If NATO troops were outside the Kremlin, maybe.
    Also, even the high ups in the Nazi regime were pretty much ignoring everything Hitler was saying at that point. He couldn’t have launched a nuke even if he had them and had wanted to - the top brass wouldn’t have fired.

    There comes a point when the power drains away from a despot and they are completely impotent: they may still carry their titles but they cannot issue the commands. If Putin really did have his back against the wall and was desperate, he would be in a similar situation i.e his underlings would be looking after themselves and completely ignoring him.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited February 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Michael Flynn wrote another op-ed for Russia, saying Putin has "legitimate security concerns."
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PiperK/status/1498113706693214208

    One of Trump's advisors was on Fox saying that we should absolutely let Russia take parts of Ukraine.

    It was so bad the Fox anchor had to do a minutes long rebuttal.


    But sure, tell me about how if Trump (who impeached for attempting to withhold aid to Ukraine) was in charge Putin wouldn't be trying to seize Ukrainian territory.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,632
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Government sources are playing down the chances of Patel announcing specific new measures for Ukrainian refugees this afternoon. They say to expect a more broad statement about a fresh package of support with the details coming later this week.
    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1498292570434293767

    Boris hoping for a ceasefire to bail him out?
    Pass - but it's really simple - there is a war with refugees and we aren't even let people bring their own family members to the UK....
    That's the effect of decades of hostility to immigrants and asylum seekers from the Press, and the cowardice of politicians in response.

    The anger at siding with Britain First fascists during the crisis will pass, but the anti-migrant anger at any refugees they let in will fester all the way to polling day.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,128
    DougSeal said:

    Mulling over a comment from @malcolmg on the last thread. Why does he think I’m a Tory? Is this a common misapprehension?

    No - but Malc G is a very common misapprehension!
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,557
    Alistair said:

    But sure, tell me about how if Trump (who impeached for attempting to withhold aid to Ukraine) was in charge Putin wouldn't be trying to seize Ukrainian territory.

    Waaaayyyy ahead of you...

    Trump, who discussed pulling the US from NATO takes credit for NATO’s existence in a new statement. Trump, who threatened to withhold weapons funding from Ukraine to get dirt on Biden, takes credit for Ukrainian weapons in same statement. https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1498302199134404609/photo/1
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited February 2022
    DougSeal said:

    Mulling over a comment from @malcolmg on the last thread. Why does he think I’m a Tory? Is this a common misapprehension?

    Fallacy of the undistributed middle:

    I have never kissed a tory

    I have never kissed you

    Therefore you are a tory

    Unless the two of you did have a teenage snog, in which case ignore.
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    Mulling over a comment from @malcolmg on the last thread. Why does he think I’m a Tory? Is this a common misapprehension?

    Its malcolm's go to line. Either that or you're afraid of Scottish independence, which is one I get quite frequently despite being in favour of it.

    Don't worry, he's just a bit narcissistic and doesn't actually pay attention to what other people like you or me actually believe, he simply engages in mildly amusing verbal diarrhoea of insults instead.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,221
    edited February 2022
    @AFP
    #BREAKING US recommends Americans in Russia leave 'immediately': State Dept


    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1498303955415277582
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,957
    edited February 2022

    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Ask yourself this question, Asian.

    If Hitler had had the bomb, would he have used it to destroy the rest of the world as he faced certain defeat?

    Next question. If Hitler, why not Putin?
    Yep, any one individual can be mad and bad enough - both are required - to do that. So the question "If he is, would others stop him?" is incredibly important. Unfortunately it's also difficult to answer with any confidence. You'd have to be there - in the Kremlin - and we're not. Pity we don't have an insider. That "PJohnson" doesn't seem high enough up the food chain to me.
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,181
    edited February 2022
    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1498304646099656712

    A minimum of 6 of Russia's main/best battle tank have been destroyed/abandoned in this one video. They have 450 in total. Can't be far off 5-10% losses of them already.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Michael Flynn wrote another op-ed for Russia, saying Putin has "legitimate security concerns."
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PiperK/status/1498113706693214208

    One of Trump's advisors was on Fox saying that we should absolutely let Russia take parts of Ukraine.

    It was so bad the Fox anchor had to do a minutes long rebuttal.


    But sure, tell me about how if Trump (who impeached for attempting to withhold aid to Ukraine) was in charge Putin wouldn't be trying to seize Ukrainian territory.
    I’m ignoring your analysis on Trump and Ukraine.

    I’m waiting for Mr Ed’s fair and balanced take on it.
  • Options

    Aslan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Also:

    This should not be taken as an isolated incident. This is a clear sign that Kremlin's reputation cost is now literally 0. And this means a nuclear strike is becoming realistic.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498292779222458372

    He is right.
    That is ridiculous. Putin doesn't care about his reputation but he cares about full scale war with the West because he would lose. That is why a nuclear strike is not happening. Those pushing it are just trying to play the "don't poke the bear" card.
    Ask yourself this question, Asian.

    If Hitler had had the bomb, would he have used it to destroy the rest of the world as he faced certain defeat?

    Next question. If Hitler, why not Putin?
    If NATO troops were outside the Kremlin, maybe.
    Otoh AH didn't unleash Tabun and other such nasties when the Soviets were at the Oder. The ways of the Lord and psychotic dictators are mysterious indeed.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Chameleon said:

    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1498304646099656712

    A minimum of 6 of Russia's main/best battle tank have been destroyed/abandoned in this one video. They have 450 in total. Can't be far off 5-10% losses of them already.

    Heartening. But those are knives, Moscow is elevating this to a gunfight, and not clear whether Ukr has the necessary guns.
This discussion has been closed.