As for the couple of you bashing green policies and even in misty-eyed's case, blaming Putin's invasion on Greta (wtf?) you really need to pull yourselves together.
Recent world events have taught me and many of us that there's a need to cherish this planet on which we live not go even further into raping it.
Fracking is a disgusting rape of the earth and has no place in the British Isles.
We need to extend our renewable energy infrastructure. There are exciting developments on solar energy for example. We are close to the point where all homes will have a solar panel film applied to their windows, and then when all windows will simply have them inbuilt (like a car's heated rear window).
In the longer term we have to build more nuclear power stations, which is the most naturally occurring form of energy in the universe. We are getting close to the holy grail of fusion reactors too.
For some of us, perhaps many of us, we wish to go further and adapt. Homes need to learn to go off-grid as much as possible. Working from home should replace commuting as much as possible. Car use should be the exception rather than the rule if you can. I went down this route two years ago during lockdown and my life immeasurably improved. I am far happier than I ever was in a carbon-dependant life.
That final paragraph is, I accept, more avant garde and should not detract from the previous ones which should and can all do.
What have they done to the earth, yeah? What have they done to our fair sister? Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn and Tied her with fences and dragged her down.
Su-34 over Kharkiv. A bad sign about the trajectory of the war, suggests the Russian military has begun to use tactical aviation for bombing. Previously we only saw support from Su-25 attack aircraft. https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/1498219630137118720
The military are the key, like the oligarchs. There will be plentiful dissent inside, the question is how to organise it.
Christophe Barraud🛢@C_Barraud🇷🇺 RUSSIAN CENBANK GOVERNOR SAYS HIGH DEMAND FOR CASH HAS SENT BANKING SECTOR INTO STRUCTURAL DEFICIT OF LIQUIDITY - RTRS
They can have their toys back if they get rid of Putin, disarm completely, return all of the Ukrainian territory, and ask very, very nicely.
I wonder what Ukraine will actually choose to inflict upon them?
Send Putin a Walther PPK 7.65mm
Actually perhaps see if Kim Jong Il would like a pet Putin. If he'd throw in losing his own nukes then I think we could sign a Truss-limitation deal too.
You mean, we promise never to deploy more than the one Truss we've currently got out there?
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
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.
While I agree with this in principle, the problem is that it is by no means clear that on-shore shale (i.e fracking) is economic in the UK.
If you look at the various shale gas regions in the US - the Marcellus, Fayetville, Antrim, Haynesvlle, etc. - you find that a couple are being developed at pace, and a couple of basically been abandoned. Why? Because if it costs $3 to get gas out the ground in the Marcellus and $12 in the Antrim, then that Antrim shale is not economic. If the gas price is $7, then the Marcellus operators are making out like banditos, while the Antrim ones simply aren't drilling.
There are good reasons to think that on-shore shale in the UK is going to be significantly more expensive to develop than in the US. Firstly, we're simply a lot more populated. Most US shale gas is in regions with big ranches and not a lot of people. Land is cheap. Disruption is small. Secondly, the US has a large number of drilling rigs. There are plenty of oil/gas drilling workers and day rates are low. Thirdly, we simply don't know enough about the geology to know whether the Bowland shale is like the Marcellus (or better), or like the Antrim (or worse). And the willingness of oil and gas companies to take both significant geological and pricing risk in the UK is not high.
I would suggest that there are a couple of things - above and beyond removing the ban on fracking that can be done. The most important of these would be tax incentives to gas generators to enter into long term supply contracts with UK shale gas operators would be the most important. This would remove the price risk for an IGas or other UK shale gas player. It would also enable the UK to (relatively) quickly get a handle on what the right price of Bowland shale gas is likely to be. (And it's not a million miles different to what the German government did with solar.)
OK, in the short term you may be right. In the longer term, the cheapest form of energy generation is already from Renewables, we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels not only for the sake of the planet but also to avoid future price spikes and to avoid being dependent on other countries for our energy.
100k is lots of people. Most will want to stay closer to home in more culturally similar slavic nations such as Poland & Czech republic, probably not Serbia mind.....
Scott would have said the same whatever figure had been given. Best ignored.
Patel rejects full visa waiver for Ukrainians saying there are security concerns about extremists entering UK as well as Russians who may try to pose as Ukrainian
Says her approach is "based on the strongest security advice"
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
Another grim video from Kharkiv. No bodies or gore, but just the terrible sound of missiles slamming into ordinary neighborhoods, with people shopping, and the consequent screams and chaos
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.
While I agree with this in principle, the problem is that it is by no means clear that on-shore shale (i.e fracking) is economic in the UK.
If you look at the various shale gas regions in the US - the Marcellus, Fayetville, Antrim, Haynesvlle, etc. - you find that a couple are being developed at pace, and a couple of basically been abandoned. Why? Because if it costs $3 to get gas out the ground in the Marcellus and $12 in the Antrim, then that Antrim shale is not economic. If the gas price is $7, then the Marcellus operators are making out like banditos, while the Antrim ones simply aren't drilling.
There are good reasons to think that on-shore shale in the UK is going to be significantly more expensive to develop than in the US. Firstly, we're simply a lot more populated. Most US shale gas is in regions with big ranches and not a lot of people. Land is cheap. Disruption is small. Secondly, the US has a large number of drilling rigs. There are plenty of oil/gas drilling workers and day rates are low. Thirdly, we simply don't know enough about the geology to know whether the Bowland shale is like the Marcellus (or better), or like the Antrim (or worse). And the willingness of oil and gas companies to take both significant geological and pricing risk in the UK is not high.
I would suggest that there are a couple of things - above and beyond removing the ban on fracking that can be done. The most important of these would be tax incentives to gas generators to enter into long term supply contracts with UK shale gas operators would be the most important. This would remove the price risk for an IGas or other UK shale gas player. It would also enable the UK to (relatively) quickly get a handle on what the right price of Bowland shale gas is likely to be. (And it's not a million miles different to what the German government did with solar.)
In any case, the UK fracking is a non starter more generally - I read a geologist's assessment that the strata were too folded, intruded and cooked thermally in the past, certainly by comparison with the great North American sedimentary basins.
The reality is that we don't know enough. The traditional US oil and gas regions (Texas, Pennsylvania, etc.) have had enormous numbers of cores drilled over the past hundred years, and those core samples have been photographed and archived. There have also been enormous amounts of seismic shot.
An oil & gas company in the US looking to drill a well can draw upon a huge amount of information before he ever commits to a single day of drilling.
That's not true in the UK. And therefore you have an awful lot of risk.
Christophe Barraud🛢@C_Barraud🇷🇺 RUSSIAN CENBANK GOVERNOR SAYS HIGH DEMAND FOR CASH HAS SENT BANKING SECTOR INTO STRUCTURAL DEFICIT OF LIQUIDITY - RTRS
They can have their toys back if they get rid of Putin, disarm completely, return all of the Ukrainian territory, and ask very, very nicely.
I wonder what Ukraine will actually choose to inflict upon them?
Send Putin a Walther PPK 7.65mm
Actually perhaps see if Kim Jong Il would like a pet Putin. If he'd throw in losing his own nukes then I think we could sign a Truss-limitation deal too.
You mean, we promise never to deploy more than the one Truss we've currently got out there?
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
You reckon Putin is breathlessly waiting on every Truss tweet, moving Russian subs into position based on the number of flags in the background?
Another grim video from Kharkiv. No bodies or gore, but just the terrible sound of missiles slamming into ordinary neighborhoods, with people shopping, and the consequent screams and chaos
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.
While I agree with this in principle, the problem is that it is by no means clear that on-shore shale (i.e fracking) is economic in the UK.
If you look at the various shale gas regions in the US - the Marcellus, Fayetville, Antrim, Haynesvlle, etc. - you find that a couple are being developed at pace, and a couple of basically been abandoned. Why? Because if it costs $3 to get gas out the ground in the Marcellus and $12 in the Antrim, then that Antrim shale is not economic. If the gas price is $7, then the Marcellus operators are making out like banditos, while the Antrim ones simply aren't drilling.
There are good reasons to think that on-shore shale in the UK is going to be significantly more expensive to develop than in the US. Firstly, we're simply a lot more populated. Most US shale gas is in regions with big ranches and not a lot of people. Land is cheap. Disruption is small. Secondly, the US has a large number of drilling rigs. There are plenty of oil/gas drilling workers and day rates are low. Thirdly, we simply don't know enough about the geology to know whether the Bowland shale is like the Marcellus (or better), or like the Antrim (or worse). And the willingness of oil and gas companies to take both significant geological and pricing risk in the UK is not high.
I would suggest that there are a couple of things - above and beyond removing the ban on fracking that can be done. The most important of these would be tax incentives to gas generators to enter into long term supply contracts with UK shale gas operators would be the most important. This would remove the price risk for an IGas or other UK shale gas player. It would also enable the UK to (relatively) quickly get a handle on what the right price of Bowland shale gas is likely to be. (And it's not a million miles different to what the German government did with solar.)
OK, in the short term you may be right. In the longer term, the cheapest form of energy generation is already from Renewables, we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels not only for the sake of the planet but also to avoid future price spikes and to avoid being dependent on other countries for our energy.
The question is not really about where the vast majority of electricity generation should come from - and that is renewables.
It is how do we deal with times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?
At that time you need backups - and natural gas is clearly the best choice. It is energy dense. It can be powered up (or down) very quickly at times of need. It is relatively unpolluting. And one can store several months of usage, should you so desire.
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
You reckon Putin is breathlessly waiting on every Truss tweet, moving Russian subs into position based on the number of flags in the background?
Obviously not. He does that based upon whether Leon insulted his manhood that day.
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
You reckon Putin is breathlessly waiting on every Truss tweet, moving Russian subs into position based on the number of flags in the background?
Why would I think that? I think he gives due weight to her official pronouncemouts as UK FS. Why wouldn't he?
Sadly the International Harvesters tractor factory is no more. It was sold off to an Italian firm at the behest of the EU and they were given a grant to move all the equipment to Italy...
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
Quite. Ribbentrop springs to mind (I know he was a von but afaics that was a later add on)
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
Do you know what the results are if voters are asked if they want Essex to take hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees?
Immigration policy is determined for the whole UK not just 1 county, not least as Priti Patel is an Essex MP.
Any refugees would be divided equally between each UK region
You cruel bastard. They come from the Ukraine looking to avoid torture and violence, and then you chop them into 48 bits and mail them around the country.
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
At the request of the Ukrainian government, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has spoken to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Elysée palace has said in a statement:
The president reiterated the international community’s demand that [Russia] halt its offensive against Ukraine, and reaffirmed the necessity of immediately establishing a ceasefire. With ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow under way on the Belarus border, Macron also asked Putin to ensure that for the duration of the negotiations all strikes and attacks on civilians and their homes would be halted, civilian infrastructure would be preserved, and all main roads – particularly the road south out of Kyiv – would remain safe to use.
Putin “confirmed his willingness to commit to all three points”, the Elysée statement said.
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.
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?
Hitler, yes. The issue is whether he would have been obeyed, if Germany in turn faced atomic devastation.
Certainly a relevant factor. But the notion of a clean and simple "if they push the button, we push the button back and they know this so they won't" formulation just doesn't ring true to me. More likely imo - in practice which is all that counts - is a messy escalating situation which spins out of control.
Eg (and this is only an eg) Putin/Russia first calculate what WMD they could use, and where, that would stop just short of triggering a response in kind. Once this path is chosen, whether they have calculated right or wrong, the chance of a cataclysmic ultimate outcome is non-trivial.
This is why I take little comfort from the "nuclear deterrent" and "mutually assured destruction". I think the logic behind it is a bit facile and ivory tower.
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
Do you know what the results are if voters are asked if they want Essex to take hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees?
Immigration policy is determined for the whole UK not just 1 county, not least as Priti Patel is an Essex MP.
Any refugees would be divided equally between each UK region
You cruel bastard. They come from the Ukraine looking to avoid torture and violence, and then you chop them into 48 bits and mail them around the country.
Consign their parts most private unto a Rutland tree.
It he starts stopping exports of gas , the economic meltdown is just going to be even quicker. I can't see what he can do economically against the USA or Europe.
The government, to my great surprise, has done very well on the Ukraine crisis so far, yet the refugee stance risks undoing a lot of that good work. These people are in need of a safe nation to reside in temporarily and we should enable them to come here. Ukrainians are very patriotic people and once Ukraine has been made safe to return I doubt many will decide not to go back and those who don't we should be happy for them to stay.
Priti Patel has once again showed why she's unsuitable for the leadership.
Again right wing ante immigration attitude nuanced in your posts
Of course numbers need to be considered, but right now most want to stay in the area around Ukraine but your attitude damages public sentiment that we should not put barriers in the way of Ukrainians seeking asylum here
Just 9% of British voters want to take in hundreds of thousands of Ukranian refugees on that poll.
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
Turkish-built TB2s are putting in one hell of a shift. Very kind of the Russians to mark their vehicles up with a massive Z so that the drones know which ones to blow up.
I guess the assumption was that the Russian air force would be the one needing to do the distinguishing.
I don't know whether it's a reflection of Ukraine's success in the propaganda war more than reality, but the Russian air force seems like the weakest link of the Russian campaign to date.
The problem they have, is that there’s not columns of Ukranian tanks and missile launchers running around.
The anti-tank weapons are handheld and invisible, the NATO anti-aircraft weapons not much bigger and easily hidden in cities.
The Russians sent missiles to UA military bases on Day 1, but haven’t really followed up. Rumour that they don’t have many of them! Russian fighter planes in Ukraine have been almost all shot out of the sky. Still no pictures of the two IL-76 transporters allegedly shot down a couple of days ago though, that might be ‘fog of war’. Pictures of paratroopers dropped in the freezing sea were rather indicative of the Russian ineptness.
This does feel something like a re-run of the Russo-FInnish Winter War of 1939-40. Russians go expecting a walkover but prove disastrously unprepared. The defenders adopt hit and run tactics, multiplying their force effectiveness and demoralizing the aggressors. It's stingers, drones and anti-tank missiles this time around, not ski-borne snipers, and Molotov cocktails (so-named if not invented by the Finns), but the chopping up of stuck columns is reminiscent of the Finnish motti
Of course the Finns were defeated in the end, losing a huge swathe of territory and resources, but they did keep their independence.
I don't know a lot of Finns but the ones I do know are very conscious of the Winter War and the courage and resourcefulness of their forces. Sadly, I don't suppose they'll ever get Karelia back.
According to a Finnish friend of mine they were offered Karelia back after the end of the cold war. They turned it down as they didn't want to also inherit the Russian speaking population. Amazing foresight.
Sadly the International Harvesters tractor factory is no more. It was sold off to an Italian firm at the behest of the EU and they were given a grant to move all the equipment to Italy...
I think we are underselling the British public in this. There will always be a vocal minority who see any asylum as the thin end of the wedge but they can be rightly ignored. I think the vast majority of people will support us taking in these refugees given what they are facing and putting an upper limit on it in this way sends entirely the wrong message.
The Government have done pretty well so far on this crisis. This though is a major misstep. They have given the appearance of having been dragged to make a concession and then not even got that right when they made it. It compares extremely poorly with what our neighbours are doing.
At the request of the Ukrainian government, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has spoken to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Elysée palace has said in a statement:
The president reiterated the international community’s demand that [Russia] halt its offensive against Ukraine, and reaffirmed the necessity of immediately establishing a ceasefire. With ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow under way on the Belarus border, Macron also asked Putin to ensure that for the duration of the negotiations all strikes and attacks on civilians and their homes would be halted, civilian infrastructure would be preserved, and all main roads – particularly the road south out of Kyiv – would remain safe to use.
Putin “confirmed his willingness to commit to all three points”, the Elysée statement said.
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.
No need to wait, I can do it -
"I know this will be unpopular on here and I'll probably get shouted down for it but Trump was an unpredictable son of a bitch and it's likely Putin wouldn't have dared mess with him. Of course this doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Sure they have a valid claim from their point of view on Ukraine and it was probably unwise of the West to disrespect this (as Trump warned, to be fair to him), but that's no excuse for a full invasion. A half of an invasion, maybe, but not one like this. Still, we are where we are, no point wailing and virtue signalling about it, what's needed now is some hard-headed dealmaking. The sort of thing that Trump, love him or loathe him, and to again be fair to him, quite literally wrote the book on. Shame about Biden."
Not bad.
Actual quote from the 11th Feb. Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also... ...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
At the request of the Ukrainian government, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has spoken to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Elysée palace has said in a statement:
The president reiterated the international community’s demand that [Russia] halt its offensive against Ukraine, and reaffirmed the necessity of immediately establishing a ceasefire. With ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow under way on the Belarus border, Macron also asked Putin to ensure that for the duration of the negotiations all strikes and attacks on civilians and their homes would be halted, civilian infrastructure would be preserved, and all main roads – particularly the road south out of Kyiv – would remain safe to use.
Putin “confirmed his willingness to commit to all three points”, the Elysée statement said.
Well that's all very welcome, but what is there to negotiate? Russia stops invading Ukraine and Ukraine - what? What can Ukraine offer? Agrees to pretend the whole thing never happened? This isn't two competing claimants where mutual antagonism and claims on either side has led step by step to war. This is one country minding its own business while the other one marches in raining death and destruction and demands the country be handed over to it.
Sadly the International Harvesters tractor factory is no more. It was sold off to an Italian firm at the behest of the EU and they were given a grant to move all the equipment to Italy...
Leigh and Bolton have quite sizeable Ukrainian communities. Wasn't uncommon to play a Leigh RL side with 4 or 5 Ukrainian surnames. When I did my PGCE in Bolton the student bar for the Education Campus was the Ukrainian club across the road. Not entirely sure why. Mining I guess.
So Boris would stay PM in his nuclear bunker with a Conservative majority while he is launching retaliatory Trident nuclear missile strikes against Moscow and St Petersburg
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
No it really isn't. People have a basic understanding of personal morality that goes far beyond merely the societal norm and is there irrespective of religious belief. Indeed in many cases both religious belief and 'public opinion' actively work against this innate moral sense.
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
Quite. Ribbentrop springs to mind (I know he was a von but afaics that was a later add on)
My ancient history tutor Tom Braun told the story that his Jewish parents got out of Germany to UK in 1938 and stayed initially in a hotel in Oxfordshire. When paying the bill they commented on the hospitality they had received and were told We always like you germans, that lovely couple the Ribbentrops were among our favourite guests.
So Boris would stay PM in his nuclear bunker with a Conservative majority while he is launching retaliatory Trident nuclear missile strikes against Moscow and St Petersburg
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.
No need to wait, I can do it -
"I know this will be unpopular on here and I'll probably get shouted down for it but Trump was an unpredictable son of a bitch and it's likely Putin wouldn't have dared mess with him. Of course this doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Sure they have a valid claim from their point of view on Ukraine and it was probably unwise of the West to disrespect this (as Trump warned, to be fair to him), but that's no excuse for a full invasion. A half of an invasion, maybe, but not one like this. Still, we are where we are, no point wailing and virtue signalling about it, what's needed now is some hard-headed dealmaking. The sort of thing that Trump, love him or loathe him, and to again be fair to him, quite literally wrote the book on. Shame about Biden."
Not bad.
Actual quote from the 11th Feb. Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also... ...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
Well, I think @MrEd is partly right. I think the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan told Putin that the US was not up for a fight.
What Putin got wrong is that Biden is an old cold war warrior, who sees Russia as a threat, and who is a big supporter of NATO.
It is also worth noting that Russia did invade Ukraine on Trump's watch. The breakaway areas in the East were invaded by Russian troops on Trump's watch, and he did absolutely nothing.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
"Demilitarisation of the Ukrainian state" is never going to happen, because that goes beyond neutrality. He's moving, very likely under massive pressure from somewhere inside, but he's going to have to get rid of that one as well.
So Boris would stay PM in his nuclear bunker with a Conservative majority while he is launching retaliatory Trident nuclear missile strikes against Moscow and St Petersburg
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
No it really isn't. People have a basic understanding of personal morality that goes far beyond merely the societal norm and is there irrespective of religious belief. Indeed in many cases both religious belief and 'public opinion' actively work against this innate moral sense.
Peoples' personal morality is what the majority of them think is right at the time.
In the 1930s most Germans voted for the Nazis and the Nationalists. Hitler represented what most Germans' personal morality was for that period.
Religious morality however is set in stone in religious texts like the Bible, Torah and Koran regardless of public opinion
Sadly the International Harvesters tractor factory is no more. It was sold off to an Italian firm at the behest of the EU and they were given a grant to move all the equipment to Italy...
I think we are underselling the British public in this. There will always be a vocal minority who see any asylum as the thin end of the wedge but they can be rightly ignored. I think the vast majority of people will support us taking in these refugees given what they are facing and putting an upper limit on it in this way sends entirely the wrong message.
The Government have done pretty well so far on this crisis. This though is a major misstep. They have given the appearance of having been dragged to make a concession and then not even got that right when they made it. It compares extremely poorly with what our neighbours are doing.
Indeed.
I could kind of understand the wariness over Afghan refugees without papers or not taken directly from Afghanistan.
But a mother with children carrying a Ukrainian passport isn't going to turn out to be ISIS.
Let them in.
I'm sure the government will get it right eventually, but the delay looks terrible.
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.
No need to wait, I can do it -
"I know this will be unpopular on here and I'll probably get shouted down for it but Trump was an unpredictable son of a bitch and it's likely Putin wouldn't have dared mess with him. Of course this doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Sure they have a valid claim from their point of view on Ukraine and it was probably unwise of the West to disrespect this (as Trump warned, to be fair to him), but that's no excuse for a full invasion. A half of an invasion, maybe, but not one like this. Still, we are where we are, no point wailing and virtue signalling about it, what's needed now is some hard-headed dealmaking. The sort of thing that Trump, love him or loathe him, and to again be fair to him, quite literally wrote the book on. Shame about Biden."
Not bad.
Actual quote from the 11th Feb. Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also... ...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
I don't think any of that's unreasonable, tbh. Biden hasn't exactly inspired confidence in his determination to defend friendly regimes against aggressors. My wife, who has nothing but contempt for Trump, made the same point last night. OTOH, the one thing we are told that Biden is good at - and the way things have gone this last year makes me believe it - is building coalitions of allies. Hard to imagine the west would have worked so well together with Trump in charge.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Number 2 is the tricky 1. They can’t forfeit their army. And there’s no reason why the “Nazi in Chief” should resign as President. A promise not to host foreign military assets but then beef up their own capability perhaps.
Hopefully room for a compromise in there somewhere.
At the request of the Ukrainian government, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has spoken to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Elysée palace has said in a statement:
The president reiterated the international community’s demand that [Russia] halt its offensive against Ukraine, and reaffirmed the necessity of immediately establishing a ceasefire. With ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow under way on the Belarus border, Macron also asked Putin to ensure that for the duration of the negotiations all strikes and attacks on civilians and their homes would be halted, civilian infrastructure would be preserved, and all main roads – particularly the road south out of Kyiv – would remain safe to use.
Putin “confirmed his willingness to commit to all three points”, the Elysée statement said.
Well that's all very welcome, but what is there to negotiate? Russia stops invading Ukraine and Ukraine - what? What can Ukraine offer? Agrees to pretend the whole thing never happened? This isn't two competing claimants where mutual antagonism and claims on either side has led step by step to war. This is one country minding its own business while the other one marches in raining death and destruction and demands the country be handed over to it.
As it stands Russia will have to make concessions. They're losing, and losing badly.
Today I've written to all UK ports asking them not to provide access to any Russian flagged, registered, owned, controlled, chartered or operated vessels.
Given Putin's action in #Ukraine I've made clear these vessels are NOT welcome here with prohibiting legislation to follow.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Well, if he'd done it in October it would have caused enormous problems in Europe.
But done at the beginning of March, when the Germans are only using 4GW of natural gas in power gen, it's not anywhere near as big a threat.
How long would it take for us or the Germans to get other measures in place for next winter to ensure security of supply? LNG is going to be in short supply for delivery, and you can't just build coal plants or enough renewables that quickly. In the case of Germany, they'll have to build terminals - how long would that take?
Whatever, I cannot see many countries taking much gas from Germany in the medium term unless te terms are *very* good. You don't want them to just switch off the tap.
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.
That’s easy - let local authorities rather than central government levy taxes on production. If everyone in your district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill, people might suddenly be in favour of it.
Trouble with this, is that knowing the average Local Authority, they'll waste the entire windfall on some ill thought-out scheme to invest in Dutch tulips, and end up demanding a council tax increase instead.
A better system would be that say 80% of the windfall was distributed as a council tax reduction (but in no way controlled by the council), and 20% went directly to the council budget. That would provide the right incentives all round, but prevent local councils from doing too much stupid stuff with the windfall. (This would be a better arrangement than all the S106 planning stuff too).
The irony with fracking is that there is virtually nothing for the nimby's to get excided about anyway - if it didn't need lots of planning consent etc, they would never even notice it happening - it's just that somehow the crusties have convinced the world fracking will result in the four horsemen of the apocalypse appearing on the street.
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
No it really isn't. People have a basic understanding of personal morality that goes far beyond merely the societal norm and is there irrespective of religious belief. Indeed in many cases both religious belief and 'public opinion' actively work against this innate moral sense.
Peoples' personal morality is what the majority of them think is right at the time.
In the 1930s most Germans voted for the Nazis and the Nationalists. Hitler represented what most Germans' personal morality was for that period.
Religious morality however is set in stone in religious texts like the Bible, Torah and Koran regardless of public opinion
Ah, I get it now. You don’t believe any of this guff you just write it for fun. Fair play.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Number 2 is the tricky 1. They can’t forfeit their army. And there’s no reason why the “Nazi in Chief” should resign as President. A promise not to host foreign military assets but then beef up their own capability perhaps.
Hopefully room for a compromise in there somewhere.
Number 2 is impossible - it's merely there to ensure the next time Putin needs a story at home he can walk into the Ukraine without resistance.
And it's hard to understand what is meant by denazification of a country that doesn't have the Nazi party in power.
Very interesting how , if correct, Putin's demands there don't even mention Dombass, which was supposed to have been the pretext for this whole conflict. His authority somewhere must be collapsing.
"Whatever political disagreements any of us have with Liz Truss - and I have many deep differences with her - we should not fall for this transparent Russian attempt to divert. The only person responsible for Putin’s despicable nuclear threat is Putin."
No, that is dim of Nicola.
You meet a lunatic with an axe who wants to murder his wife. He asks about her whereabouts. You truthfully tell him. The person responsible for the ensuing despicable axe murder is the husband, but you don't come out looking great either.
This let's all get behind the Trussster nonsense is inexplicable. Never seen anyone so far out of their depth.
Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time. It doesn't excuse how enthusiastic some outlets are to parrot the Kremlin line.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
"Truss cannot be useless and consequential at the same time."
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
Quite. Ribbentrop springs to mind (I know he was a von but afaics that was a later add on)
My ancient history tutor Tom Braun told the story that his Jewish parents got out of Germany to UK in 1938 and stayed initially in a hotel in Oxfordshire. When paying the bill they commented on the hospitality they had received and were told We always like you germans, that lovely couple the Ribbentrops were among our favourite guests.
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.
No need to wait, I can do it -
"I know this will be unpopular on here and I'll probably get shouted down for it but Trump was an unpredictable son of a bitch and it's likely Putin wouldn't have dared mess with him. Of course this doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Sure they have a valid claim from their point of view on Ukraine and it was probably unwise of the West to disrespect this (as Trump warned, to be fair to him), but that's no excuse for a full invasion. A half of an invasion, maybe, but not one like this. Still, we are where we are, no point wailing and virtue signalling about it, what's needed now is some hard-headed dealmaking. The sort of thing that Trump, love him or loathe him, and to again be fair to him, quite literally wrote the book on. Shame about Biden."
Not bad.
Actual quote from the 11th Feb. Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also... ...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
I don't think any of that's unreasonable, tbh. Biden hasn't exactly inspired confidence in his determination to defend friendly regimes against aggressors. My wife, who has nothing but contempt for Trump, made the same point last night. OTOH, the one thing we are told that Biden is good at - and the way things have gone this last year makes me believe it - is building coalitions of allies. Hard to imagine the west would have worked so well together with Trump in charge.
Thanks @Cookie I was taking a fast from posting but cheers for your comment. I see the usual suspects can't help themselves including the irrepressible @kinabalu and the flamboyant @TSE.
Still, far more importantly, like your wife, 62% of Americans think the same way, including 38% of Democrats:
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
No it really isn't. People have a basic understanding of personal morality that goes far beyond merely the societal norm and is there irrespective of religious belief. Indeed in many cases both religious belief and 'public opinion' actively work against this innate moral sense.
Peoples' personal morality is what the majority of them think is right at the time.
In the 1930s most Germans voted for the Nazis and the Nationalists. Hitler represented what most Germans' personal morality was for that period.
Religious morality however is set in stone in religious texts like the Bible, Torah and Koran regardless of public opinion
Along with stoning gays, slavery and medieval food bans.
Give me atheism any day.
Of course most of those people who voted for Hitler in the 1930s were religious - Catholics, Lutherans and other Christian denominations. So their religious morality didn't exact shine through there did it?
Look to those who defied - both religious and irreligious - for personal morality. There is an innate sense of right and wrong irrespective of our upbringing and environment. It is what dragged us out of the mud long before religion came along.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Turkish-built TB2s are putting in one hell of a shift. Very kind of the Russians to mark their vehicles up with a massive Z so that the drones know which ones to blow up.
I guess the assumption was that the Russian air force would be the one needing to do the distinguishing.
I don't know whether it's a reflection of Ukraine's success in the propaganda war more than reality, but the Russian air force seems like the weakest link of the Russian campaign to date.
The problem they have, is that there’s not columns of Ukranian tanks and missile launchers running around.
The anti-tank weapons are handheld and invisible, the NATO anti-aircraft weapons not much bigger and easily hidden in cities.
The Russians sent missiles to UA military bases on Day 1, but haven’t really followed up. Rumour that they don’t have many of them! Russian fighter planes in Ukraine have been almost all shot out of the sky. Still no pictures of the two IL-76 transporters allegedly shot down a couple of days ago though, that might be ‘fog of war’. Pictures of paratroopers dropped in the freezing sea were rather indicative of the Russian ineptness.
This does feel something like a re-run of the Russo-FInnish Winter War of 1939-40. Russians go expecting a walkover but prove disastrously unprepared. The defenders adopt hit and run tactics, multiplying their force effectiveness and demoralizing the aggressors. It's stingers, drones and anti-tank missiles this time around, not ski-borne snipers, and Molotov cocktails (so-named if not invented by the Finns), but the chopping up of stuck columns is reminiscent of the Finnish motti
Of course the Finns were defeated in the end, losing a huge swathe of territory and resources, but they did keep their independence.
I don't know a lot of Finns but the ones I do know are very conscious of the Winter War and the courage and resourcefulness of their forces. Sadly, I don't suppose they'll ever get Karelia back.
We own property in Finland and the tenant we inherited (now deceased) was a significant figure in the Finnish army during the winter war. He would never speak about his exploits but his family persuaded him to write down his story, which they self-published. It is in places quite astonishing. An interesting echo of the current war is that the Russians they captured were often from far flung parts and had little idea of where they actually were.
Perhaps on occasions, polling outcomes should cede to the moral case.
Morality, other than what is found in religious texts, in a democracy is ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follows into policy and law
Come now Ayatollah Khomeini.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Hitler on no level represented Christian morality no but he did represent the views of enough Germans for the Nazis to win most seats in the German Parliament in the 1930s.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
I can't think of a more nebulous construct than "morality". Nonetheless "morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time" must be just plain wrong. If public opinion is immoral (e.g. support in WW2 Germany for anti-Semitism) it is by definition not moral.
I am not religious but I see the ten commandments as a pretty reasonable moral code. TV Evangelists or Catholic Priests espousing the ten commandments but ignoring a handful when it suits them is not "religious morality".
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.
No need to wait, I can do it -
"I know this will be unpopular on here and I'll probably get shouted down for it but Trump was an unpredictable son of a bitch and it's likely Putin wouldn't have dared mess with him. Of course this doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Sure they have a valid claim from their point of view on Ukraine and it was probably unwise of the West to disrespect this (as Trump warned, to be fair to him), but that's no excuse for a full invasion. A half of an invasion, maybe, but not one like this. Still, we are where we are, no point wailing and virtue signalling about it, what's needed now is some hard-headed dealmaking. The sort of thing that Trump, love him or loathe him, and to again be fair to him, quite literally wrote the book on. Shame about Biden."
Not bad.
Actual quote from the 11th Feb. Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also... ...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
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.
That’s easy - let local authorities rather than central government levy taxes on production. If everyone in your district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill, people might suddenly be in favour of it.
Trouble with this, is that knowing the average Local Authority, they'll waste the entire windfall on some ill thought-out scheme to invest in Dutch tulips, and end up demanding a council tax increase instead.
A better system would be that say 80% of the windfall was distributed as a council tax reduction (but in no way controlled by the council), and 20% went directly to the council budget. That would provide the right incentives all round, but prevent local councils from doing too much stupid stuff with the windfall. (This would be a better arrangement than all the S106 planning stuff too).
The irony with fracking is that there is virtually nothing for the nimby's to get excided about anyway - if it didn't need lots of planning consent etc, they would never even notice it happening - it's just that somehow the crusties have convinced the world fracking will result in the four horsemen of the apocalypse appearing on the street.
The number of earthquakes around Blackpool suggests that your idea people won't notice isn't true.
Very interesting how , if correct, Putin's demands there don't even mention Dombass, which was supposed to have been the pretext for this whole conflict. His authority somewhere must be collapsing.
They're recognised as independent states by Russia. I assume the omission is because Russia considers it's troops there to not be on Ukranian (Nor Russian) soil, therefore there is nothing to discuss regarding these territories between Russia and Ukraine - that would be a matter between LPR, DPR and Ukraine.... ; whereas Crimea is, in Russia's facts part of Russia.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
We should grab at this, even if it sticks in the throat. It’s close to what I’ve been proposing since this kicked off.
Ukraine to stay neutral and demilitarise; Crimea to be recognised as Russian.
I don’t know what denazification means, except the deposition of the Ukrainian government. But we can’t agree to that.
It's all OK except the demilitarisation and "denazification" bit, whatever that's means. He's going to have stick that, because the Ukrainians would never accept it.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
Number 2 is the tricky 1. They can’t forfeit their army. And there’s no reason why the “Nazi in Chief” should resign as President. A promise not to host foreign military assets but then beef up their own capability perhaps.
Hopefully room for a compromise in there somewhere.
Number 2 is impossible - it's merely there to ensure the next time Putin needs a story at home he can walk into the Ukraine without resistance.
And it's hard to understand what is meant by denazification of a country that doesn't have the Nazi party in power.
In Putinland, Nazi = anyone who doesn't like Putin.
Which does put us in the uncomfortable position of being Nazis. I'm not sure that allows me to stay a member of the Conservative Party....?
So on my shortlist of places to go come the apocalypse, the Vineyard in East Kent is maybe an option. There's a caravan there and running water. Not so good if there are gentle Westerlies blowing though.
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.
While I agree with this in principle, the problem is that it is by no means clear that on-shore shale (i.e fracking) is economic in the UK.
If you look at the various shale gas regions in the US - the Marcellus, Fayetville, Antrim, Haynesvlle, etc. - you find that a couple are being developed at pace, and a couple of basically been abandoned. Why? Because if it costs $3 to get gas out the ground in the Marcellus and $12 in the Antrim, then that Antrim shale is not economic. If the gas price is $7, then the Marcellus operators are making out like banditos, while the Antrim ones simply aren't drilling.
There are good reasons to think that on-shore shale in the UK is going to be significantly more expensive to develop than in the US. Firstly, we're simply a lot more populated. Most US shale gas is in regions with big ranches and not a lot of people. Land is cheap. Disruption is small. Secondly, the US has a large number of drilling rigs. There are plenty of oil/gas drilling workers and day rates are low. Thirdly, we simply don't know enough about the geology to know whether the Bowland shale is like the Marcellus (or better), or like the Antrim (or worse). And the willingness of oil and gas companies to take both significant geological and pricing risk in the UK is not high.
I would suggest that there are a couple of things - above and beyond removing the ban on fracking that can be done. The most important of these would be tax incentives to gas generators to enter into long term supply contracts with UK shale gas operators would be the most important. This would remove the price risk for an IGas or other UK shale gas player. It would also enable the UK to (relatively) quickly get a handle on what the right price of Bowland shale gas is likely to be. (And it's not a million miles different to what the German government did with solar.)
OK, in the short term you may be right. In the longer term, the cheapest form of energy generation is already from Renewables, we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels not only for the sake of the planet but also to avoid future price spikes and to avoid being dependent on other countries for our energy.
The question is not really about where the vast majority of electricity generation should come from - and that is renewables.
It is how do we deal with times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?
At that time you need backups - and natural gas is clearly the best choice. It is energy dense. It can be powered up (or down) very quickly at times of need. It is relatively unpolluting. And one can store several months of usage, should you so desire.
I think that transition can be made quite short. There is a need for Russian gas right now because we're not there yet on renewables but within I suspect two or three years the combination of more renewables, better efficiency, more LNG supplies and storage, Europe can supply all its gas needs with existing supplies (North Sea, LNG, Algeria etc) without requiring Russia and prices will start coming down on the overall energy mix.
So we have a gap of a couple of years. I would suggest filling it with coal, at least for energy security where you may not need to burn it at all. Cheap to store, requires little capital investment.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea – demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state – ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
We should grab at this, even if it sticks in the throat. It’s close to what I’ve been proposing since this kicked off.
Ukraine to stay neutral and demilitarise; Crimea to be recognised as Russian.
I don’t know what denazification means, except the deposition of the Ukrainian government. But we can’t agree to that.
Nothing to do with us whether Ukraine wants to be neutral or renounce it’s claim Crimea on. However it is our job to support Ukraine in not agreeing to do such things under duress with a gun to its head.
Well, if he'd done it in October it would have caused enormous problems in Europe.
But done at the beginning of March, when the Germans are only using 4GW of natural gas in power gen, it's not anywhere near as big a threat.
How long would it take for us or the Germans to get other measures in place for next winter to ensure security of supply? LNG is going to be in short supply for delivery, and you can't just build coal plants or enough renewables that quickly. In the case of Germany, they'll have to build terminals - how long would that take?
Whatever, I cannot see many countries taking much gas from Germany in the medium term unless te terms are *very* good. You don't want them to just switch off the tap.
You don't need terminals in Germany - there's plenty of European LNG import terminal capacity, and there are pan-European pipe networks.
The bottlenecks are two-fold: one, drilling in the US collapsed during the pandemic, and while it is recovering, there are long leads and lags; two, there aren't enough LNG vessels, and day rates have really spiked (above $200k/day).
The first of these is being addressed - North American horizontal rig count has risen from 234 a year ago to 593 today, and will no doubt get into the 800s by the middle of the year.
The second is a longer term issue. Ships simply can't be built that quickly.
While the retired German nuclear plants were old, maintenance heavy, and had poor uptime, they really should not have been retired.
Comments
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn and
Tied her with fences and dragged her down.
Aging hippy stuff. Prescient bloke, Jim.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/28/comparethemarket-meerkat-ads-tv-ukraine-russian-aleksandr-orlov
Mind you it was hard to see where Aleksandr's wealth came from.
In the longer term, the cheapest form of energy generation is already from Renewables, we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels not only for the sake of the planet but also to avoid future price spikes and to avoid being dependent on other countries for our energy.
Sturgeon got the tone right there. It's a good intervention, politically, as the SNP need to find a way to be relevant in a UK Gov dominant issue.
The other thing would be to propose a deal with Germany over offshore wind.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1497568020738289672?s=20&t=iNWnFDJP8iiVnvl_CMZy-Q
A madman has blown his own country up economically because of he's weird paranoid fantasies about the world.
Even the oligarchs and the meatpacking glitterati must be ready to get rid now?
An oil & gas company in the US looking to drill a well can draw upon a huge amount of information before he ever commits to a single day of drilling.
That's not true in the UK. And therefore you have an awful lot of risk.
Well of course she can. She is a useless person in a consequential position.
Any refugees would be divided equally between each UK region
It is how do we deal with times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?
At that time you need backups - and natural gas is clearly the best choice. It is energy dense. It can be powered up (or down) very quickly at times of need. It is relatively unpolluting. And one can store several months of usage, should you so desire.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1498322451666767882?
The plan is to move it further north but I would love to know where - Manchester and Leeds are strange places when it comes to the IT marketplace.
Hmmm. The man with the small moustache demonstrated an immorality "in (initially at least) a democracy ... ultimately determined by the majority of public opinion which the elected government then follow(ed) into policy and law".
Do you think we should take relatives of people already here?
There's quite a few Ukrainians in the Flatlands and I can't see there being any trouble with it.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/marina-lewycka-1768147
Sadly the International Harvesters tractor factory is no more. It was sold off to an Italian firm at the behest of the EU and they were given a grant to move all the equipment to Italy...
Ribbentrop springs to mind (I know he was a von but afaics that was a later add on)
It looks seriously weird.
That would be a first.
At the request of the Ukrainian government, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has spoken to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Elysée palace has said in a statement:
The president reiterated the international community’s demand that [Russia] halt its offensive against Ukraine, and reaffirmed the necessity of immediately establishing a ceasefire.
With ceasefire talks between Kyiv and Moscow under way on the Belarus border, Macron also asked Putin to ensure that for the duration of the negotiations all strikes and attacks on civilians and their homes would be halted, civilian infrastructure would be preserved, and all main roads – particularly the road south out of Kyiv – would remain safe to use.
Putin “confirmed his willingness to commit to all three points”, the Elysée statement said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/28/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-update-conflict-belarus-putin-nuclear-deterrence-order-kyiv-russian-invasion-live-updates
Eg (and this is only an eg) Putin/Russia first calculate what WMD they could use, and where, that would stop just short of triggering a response in kind. Once this path is chosen, whether they have calculated right or wrong, the chance of a cataclysmic ultimate outcome is non-trivial.
This is why I take little comfort from the "nuclear deterrent" and "mutually assured destruction". I think the logic behind it is a bit facile and ivory tower.
zerohedge
@zerohedge
·
4m
PUTIN BANS FX OPERATIONS FROM RUSSIAN RESIDENTS TO NON-RESIDENTS ON LOAN CONTRACTS FROM MARCH 1
blanket default?
But done at the beginning of March, when the Germans are only using 4GW of natural gas in power gen, it's not anywhere near as big a threat.
Absent religious morality, morality is just simply the view of the majority of public opinion at the time, which in turn through the elected government then influences lawmaking
The Government have done pretty well so far on this crisis. This though is a major misstep. They have given the appearance of having been dragged to make a concession and then not even got that right when they made it. It compares extremely poorly with what our neighbours are doing.
Robert Smith
@BondHack
·
13m
UKRAINE TO ISSUE WAR BONDS TO FUND ITS ARMED FORCES IN BATTLE AGAINST RUSSIA
UKRAINE HOSTING CALL WITH DEBT INVESTORS AT 4PM LONDON TIME
(full to story to come)
https://twitter.com/BondHack
https://twitter.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1498318853507538945?s=20&t=u4-sxe6BHQEFXT7qDnRFKQ
Actual quote from the 11th Feb.
Much as you - and others on here - slag me off for saying I preferred Trump over Biden, this is exactly the reason why I would stand by my choice. There is a reason Putin didn’t try any sh1t when Trump was President and it wasn’t because he was Kompromat. It was because Putin was wary of provoking someone like Trump. Biden is weak but my overriding fear is that, in order to give off the impression of strength, Biden tries too hard and pushes the world into a catastrophe...
Also...
...But the US has essentially sold Ukraine down the river by making it clear it won’t get involved and, even if there are sanctions, they will be limited in scope.
What looks more clear is that Putin despises Biden, sees him as weak and a pushover. And predictable. And that’s dangerous...
This isn't two competing claimants where mutual antagonism and claims on either side has led step by step to war. This is one country minding its own business while the other one marches in raining death and destruction and demands the country be handed over to it.
Wasn't uncommon to play a Leigh RL side with 4 or 5 Ukrainian surnames.
When I did my PGCE in Bolton the student bar for the Education Campus was the Ukrainian club across the road.
Not entirely sure why. Mining I guess.
Doesn't look Putin is ready to back down: he said a deal "is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account.
Those interests include:
– recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea
– demilitarization and denazification of the Ukrainian state
– ensuring its neutral status
Ukraine said it was open to neutrality, but hard to see how they agree to the rest after all that's happened."
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1498323686495039489?s=21
Once your leader goes into unhinged foreign adventurer mode, you want to be out of range of the spittle.
What Putin got wrong is that Biden is an old cold war warrior, who sees Russia as a threat, and who is a big supporter of NATO.
It is also worth noting that Russia did invade Ukraine on Trump's watch. The breakaway areas in the East were invaded by Russian troops on Trump's watch, and he did absolutely nothing.
In the 1930s most Germans voted for the Nazis and the Nationalists. Hitler represented what most Germans' personal morality was for that period.
Religious morality however is set in stone in religious texts like the Bible, Torah and Koran regardless of public opinion
I could kind of understand the wariness over Afghan refugees without papers or not taken directly from Afghanistan.
But a mother with children carrying a Ukrainian passport isn't going to turn out to be ISIS.
Let them in.
I'm sure the government will get it right eventually, but the delay looks terrible.
OTOH, the one thing we are told that Biden is good at - and the way things have gone this last year makes me believe it - is building coalitions of allies. Hard to imagine the west would have worked so well together with Trump in charge.
Number 3 is a paper promise.
Number 2 is the tricky 1. They can’t forfeit their army. And there’s no reason why the “Nazi in Chief” should resign as President. A promise not to host foreign military assets but then beef up their own capability perhaps.
Hopefully room for a compromise in there somewhere.
Given Putin's action in #Ukraine I've made clear these vessels are NOT welcome here with prohibiting legislation to follow.
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1498324731635843074
But ultimately (2) is a complete non-starter.
Whatever, I cannot see many countries taking much gas from Germany in the medium term unless te terms are *very* good. You don't want them to just switch off the tap.
A better system would be that say 80% of the windfall was distributed as a council tax reduction (but in no way controlled by the council), and 20% went directly to the council budget. That would provide the right incentives all round, but prevent local councils from doing too much stupid stuff with the windfall. (This would be a better arrangement than all the S106 planning stuff too).
The irony with fracking is that there is virtually nothing for the nimby's to get excided about anyway - if it didn't need lots of planning consent etc, they would never even notice it happening - it's just that somehow the crusties have convinced the world fracking will result in the four horsemen of the apocalypse appearing on the street.
And it's hard to understand what is meant by denazification of a country that doesn't have the Nazi party in power.
@Liveuamap
·
1m
President Zelensky signed an application of Ukraine to EU membership https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/28-february-president-zelensky-signed-an-application-of-ukraine #Ukraine
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1498327038830198787
Making the most of the opportunity that opened up last week.
Still, far more importantly, like your wife, 62% of Americans think the same way, including 38% of Democrats:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10554157/62-Americans-think-Putin-WOULDNT-invaded-Ukraine-Trump-president-poll-claims.html
Give me atheism any day.
Of course most of those people who voted for Hitler in the 1930s were religious - Catholics, Lutherans and other Christian denominations. So their religious morality didn't exact shine through there did it?
Look to those who defied - both religious and irreligious - for personal morality. There is an innate sense of right and wrong irrespective of our upbringing and environment. It is what dragged us out of the mud long before religion came along.
Ukraine to stay neutral and demilitarise; Crimea to be recognised as Russian.
I don’t know what denazification means, except the deposition of the Ukrainian government. But we can’t agree to that.
I am not religious but I see the ten commandments as a pretty reasonable moral code. TV Evangelists or Catholic Priests espousing the ten commandments but ignoring a handful when it suits them is not "religious morality".
Which does put us in the uncomfortable position of being Nazis. I'm not sure that allows me to stay a member of the Conservative Party....?
So we have a gap of a couple of years. I would suggest filling it with coal, at least for energy security where you may not need to burn it at all. Cheap to store, requires little capital investment.
The bottlenecks are two-fold: one, drilling in the US collapsed during the pandemic, and while it is recovering, there are long leads and lags; two, there aren't enough LNG vessels, and day rates have really spiked (above $200k/day).
The first of these is being addressed - North American horizontal rig count has risen from 234 a year ago to 593 today, and will no doubt get into the 800s by the middle of the year.
The second is a longer term issue. Ships simply can't be built that quickly.
While the retired German nuclear plants were old, maintenance heavy, and had poor uptime, they really should not have been retired.