In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
That is the problem with Scottish Nationalism, no sorry nationalism; democracy is good, provided it provides the answer we want.
Tell me, if Scotland had a referendum and separatism won, would you be in favour of another referendum 5 or 6 years later to ask whether they would like to rejoin?
Would you be in favour of some parts of Scotland retaining their membership of UK, rather like some Scots Nats suggested visa vis Scotland and membership of the EU?
Not relevant. The EU was never exerting sovereignty over the UK.
FFS! The UK has NOT "exerted" sovereignty over Scotland. Scotland IS the UK, is fully part of it and voted to remain part of it by democratic majority in 2014. You will not answer the question because you know the rationality of my question. IN other words you, and Scottish Nationalists in general want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. If you were to get it you would exert every sinew to ensure that the vote was not offered again. Very Putinesque.
I'm wary of my biases on this war. I *really* want plucky Ukraine to win, and so does most of the western media I read. Therefore I may be seeing much of the smaller victories of Ukraine, and less of any larger victories for Russia. It might be things are actually going well for Russia, or according to some weird plan.
But here's a thought: what happens if Putin, in seclusion somewhere safe, is not getting the full story from his generals on the front line? What if he's like Hitler in his bunker (*) as the Russians approached Berlin, issuing orders that had little reality to the situation on the ground?
How much of this battle is being driven from Moscow/the leadership, and how much by officers near the front?
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
Any true Scottish democrat should understand it's for BJ and his ilk to decide when Scotland has another referendum. We would be better concentrating our efforts on listening to BJ's sermons on democracy in freedom loving Ukraine.
Just cashed out my Ukraine to win Eurovision at 3.55. +£200 profit.
Well done!
A lot of talk here about what to do with the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in Glasgow on 24 March.
A lot of Scots consider it grossly unfair to continue with the match when we would effectively be playing a Youth team, as most adult Ukrainian men are serving their country or otherwise prohibited from turning up.
Consensus seems to be that we should concede the match and they get the 3 points, plus donating all the ticket money to war relief.
Why not give Ukraine a bye all the way to the final and let a Ukrainian youth lift the World Cup trophy?
I think “all the way to the final” might be pushing it. To the finals maybe but Ukrainians are a proud sporting people and would rather watch some actual matches.
There are only 3 places left - the winner of Scotland v Ukraine plays Wales or Austria
Yes they well and truly flunked it. For all the bellicosity of some of them now if the Ukrainian resistance comprised mainly of Tory MPs it would have been all over on day one.
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
That is the problem with Scottish Nationalism, no sorry nationalism; democracy is good, provided it provides the answer we want.
Tell me, if Scotland had a referendum and separatism won, would you be in favour of another referendum 5 or 6 years later to ask whether they would like to rejoin?
Would you be in favour of some parts of Scotland retaining their membership of UK, rather like some Scots Nats suggested visa vis Scotland and membership of the EU?
Not relevant. The EU was never exerting sovereignty over the UK.
FFS! The UK has NOT "exerted" sovereignty over Scotland. Scotland IS the UK, is fully part of it and voted to remain part of it by democratic majority in 2014. You will not answer the question because you know the rationality of my question. IN other words you, and Scottish Nationalists in general want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. If you were to get it you would exert every sinew to ensure that the vote was not offered again. Very Putinesque.
What else is the abandonment of the Sewell convention?
Given the massive changes since 2014 and the votes in Westminster AND Holyrood for pro-referendum parties, what else is the refusal of a referendum but exerting sovereignty, or at least the London notion of sovereignty?
And your partitionist fantasies are in particularly bad taste at present.
PS: I have to go and do some work, so you shouldn't bother replying (will save your energies for the other news, seriously).
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
Any true Scottish democrat should understand it's for BJ and his ilk to decide when Scotland has another referendum. We would be better concentrating our efforts on listening to BJ's sermons on democracy in freedom loving Ukraine.
Your countrymen/women voted not to have another one in 2014. The fat little man that used to be your beloved leader (you know the presenter for Putin's propaganda channel and he that was referred to as a "bully and a sex pest by his QC), said it was "once in a generation" . You will try and Putinise what "once in a generation" means I am sure, but most people knew what it meant, and your side lost.
It’s easy for people to call on the aggressors to stop war but true anti-war activism means putting pressure on your *own* country to take radical and urgent steps that are essential to end the war.
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
That is the problem with Scottish Nationalism, no sorry nationalism; democracy is good, provided it provides the answer we want.
Tell me, if Scotland had a referendum and separatism won, would you be in favour of another referendum 5 or 6 years later to ask whether they would like to rejoin?
Would you be in favour of some parts of Scotland retaining their membership of UK, rather like some Scots Nats suggested visa vis Scotland and membership of the EU?
Not relevant. The EU was never exerting sovereignty over the UK.
FFS! The UK has NOT "exerted" sovereignty over Scotland. Scotland IS the UK, is fully part of it and voted to remain part of it by democratic majority in 2014. You will not answer the question because you know the rationality of my question. IN other words you, and Scottish Nationalists in general want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. If you were to get it you would exert every sinew to ensure that the vote was not offered again. Very Putinesque.
What else is the abandonment of the Sewell convention?
Given the massive changes since 2014 and the votes in Westminster AND Holyrood for pro-referendum parties, what else is the refusal of a referendum but exerting sovereignty, or at least the London notion of sovereignty?
And your partitionist fantasies are in particularly bad taste at present.
"THE SNP president Michael Russell has been accused of an “utterly crass” attempt to link the Ukrainian struggle against Russia with the pursuit of Scottish independence.
"Writing about the invasion and crisis in Ukraine, he said the past need not dictate the future, “whether that be rule from Moscow, or the result of an eight-year-old referendum”.
Johnson is clearly safe until 2023 now. Bizarre that anybody thinks otherwise.
Boris was safe the moment all those Tory MPs did their 'Let's wait for the Sue Gray report' wibble. Thereafter Boris had the space to cement the spin and nobble the waverers. Operation Save Big Dog worked like a charm.
This hits the nail on the head. Its easier to not act. They sought an excuse, it bought time and it worked.
I've often thought in political betting it's generally better to bet that nothing will happen*. Not something I've actually followed much in the past, but I did with Johnson and it looks like it's going to pay off for me.
*this doesn't apply recently in by-elections where, quite often, something has happened. But of the X to be gone by Y type bets there's often overestimation of the likelihood of it happening. Just because someone should, does not mean they will.
At least 5 new Russian supply convoys hit today. Logistics are hard at the best of times, when you've unexpectedly launched a war and haven't got any semblance of control over the resupply routes it's even harder, as they're finding out.
That's grim. The first properly dead body I've seen in this war. Even though he's Russian: poor young man.
"And far away behind their lines the partisans are stirring in the forest Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise You'll never know, you'll never know which way to turn, which way to look you'll never see us As we're stealing through the blackness of the night You'll never know, you'll never hear us"
Written about a different war, facing a different enemy, on the same land.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I reckon it is a traffic jam, not a column. All it takes is a couple of breakdowns.
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
Any true Scottish democrat should understand it's for BJ and his ilk to decide when Scotland has another referendum. We would be better concentrating our efforts on listening to BJ's sermons on democracy in freedom loving Ukraine.
Ah, good. We seem to be getting somewhere, at last.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Still keeping track of the at times quite frank Russia Today website (before it's banned), and see a piece by what appears to be a senior politician/commentator, describing the invasion in detached terms as an extremely drastic operation undertaken by the leadership which will lead to prolonged isolation.:
"The Russian leadership, which decided on extremely drastic steps, probably understood the consequences, or even consciously aspired to them. The page of cooperation with the West has been turned. This does not mean that isolationism will become the norm, but it does mark the end of an important historical chapter in political relations. The new Cold War will not end quickly."
He notably refrains from endorsing it. If that's typical of senior Russian observers, it does suggest that Putin will not be kept in office if the invasion is seen to fail.
"On one side, there is the exercise of classic hard power, which is guided by simple, unpolished, but plainly understandable principles – blood and soil. Meanwhile, on the other is a modern method of propagating interests and influence, realized through a set of ideological, communicative, and economic tools, which are effective and, at the same time, malleable – commonly referred to as ‘values’."
That is an extraordinary statement to be made on RT by the "chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy".
It specifically casts the (current) Russian leadership as "not modern", and "not effective" (by inference).
RT - the official voice of Russia - endorsing "blood and soil" nationalism.
There is, incidentally, a very similar passage in Mein Kampf or the second book damning League Of Nations style values vs "blood and soil" nationalism.
*off topic, but then the topic isn’t omg WWIII
What are battlefield nuclear weapons? Is it just the same as big nuclear weapons only designed to make smaller bang considering your own people on the battlefield
Are depleted uranium shells we used in Iraq that made many of our own service people ill classed as battlefield nuclear weapon?
No.
Battlefield nukes (tactical nukes) are low-yield weapons designed to punch a small hole in enemy formations. The US even had one, the Davy Crockett, with a yield of just 20 tonnes of TNT. I wouldn't have liked to fire it.
I think it was basically superseded by powerful conventional weapons or bombs, such as MOAB.
In a way...
At low yields nuclear weapons are primarily radiation generators. The Davy Crockett warhead had very little explosive in it - so lots of gammas and neutrons escape. More than half the yield of the Davy Crockett was radiation.
Neutrons are good at killing people inside metal boxes - tanks.
Which is why the Soviets spent so much effort on lining tanks with plastic (which stops neutrons) and doing things like putting fuel tanks in doors (diesel fuel stops neutrons nicely)
It is also interesting that France overtaking the UK for fifth place was covered everywhere by the Remainer press, but when the UK retook its place no-ome mentioned it.
Depends on the grounds. I was surprised to hear someone mention earlier today that there is actually a procedure in place to do this. But I got the impression it was based on the country having waged unprovoked war. So I am not sure it would set any precedent for further change.
That said I am not sure what benefit it serves. Even if Russia were prevented from vetoing resolutions we all know that UN resolutions are pretty toothless anyway.
Further I can't see China going along with it even if they are lukewarm towards Russia as they might worry they would be on the receiving end later on when they attack Taiwan.
Lots of reasons why I don't think this will happen but none of them relate to the UK.
My mother-in-law has come across JW professionally. Her views on her were characteristically terse. I also know people who know some of the shoutier characters from that debacle. Sympathy is short on that side too.
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
That is the problem with Scottish Nationalism, no sorry nationalism; democracy is good, provided it provides the answer we want.
Tell me, if Scotland had a referendum and separatism won, would you be in favour of another referendum 5 or 6 years later to ask whether they would like to rejoin?
Would you be in favour of some parts of Scotland retaining their membership of UK, rather like some Scots Nats suggested visa vis Scotland and membership of the EU?
Not relevant. The EU was never exerting sovereignty over the UK.
FFS! The UK has NOT "exerted" sovereignty over Scotland. Scotland IS the UK, is fully part of it and voted to remain part of it by democratic majority in 2014. You will not answer the question because you know the rationality of my question. IN other words you, and Scottish Nationalists in general want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. If you were to get it you would exert every sinew to ensure that the vote was not offered again. Very Putinesque.
What else is the abandonment of the Sewell convention?
Given the massive changes since 2014 and the votes in Westminster AND Holyrood for pro-referendum parties, what else is the refusal of a referendum but exerting sovereignty, or at least the London notion of sovereignty?
And your partitionist fantasies are in particularly bad taste at present.
PS: I have to go and do some work, so you shouldn't bother replying (will save your energies for the other news, seriously).
In case you are still looking (I bet you are) I am giggling at a Scottish Nationalist talking of "partitionist fantasies". Separatism is another area it seems where it has to be the "right type" of separatism!
Still keeping track of the at times quite frank Russia Today website (before it's banned), and see a piece by what appears to be a senior politician/commentator, describing the invasion in detached terms as an extremely drastic operation undertaken by the leadership which will lead to prolonged isolation.:
"The Russian leadership, which decided on extremely drastic steps, probably understood the consequences, or even consciously aspired to them. The page of cooperation with the West has been turned. This does not mean that isolationism will become the norm, but it does mark the end of an important historical chapter in political relations. The new Cold War will not end quickly."
He notably refrains from endorsing it. If that's typical of senior Russian observers, it does suggest that Putin will not be kept in office if the invasion is seen to fail.
"On one side, there is the exercise of classic hard power, which is guided by simple, unpolished, but plainly understandable principles – blood and soil. Meanwhile, on the other is a modern method of propagating interests and influence, realized through a set of ideological, communicative, and economic tools, which are effective and, at the same time, malleable – commonly referred to as ‘values’."
That is an extraordinary statement to be made on RT by the "chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy".
It specifically casts the (current) Russian leadership as "not modern", and "not effective" (by inference).
RT - the official voice of Russia - endorsing "blood and soil" nationalism.
There is, incidentally, a very similar passage in Mein Kampf or the second book damning League Of Nations style values vs "blood and soil" nationalism.
*off topic, but then the topic isn’t omg WWIII
What are battlefield nuclear weapons? Is it just the same as big nuclear weapons only designed to make smaller bang considering your own people on the battlefield
Are depleted uranium shells we used in Iraq that made many of our own service people ill classed as battlefield nuclear weapon?
No.
Battlefield nukes (tactical nukes) are low-yield weapons designed to punch a small hole in enemy formations. The US even had one, the Davy Crockett, with a yield of just 20 tonnes of TNT. I wouldn't have liked to fire it.
I think it was basically superseded by powerful conventional weapons or bombs, such as MOAB.
In a way...
At low yields nuclear weapons are primarily radiation generators. The Davy Crockett warhead had very little explosive in it - so lots of gammas and neutrons escape. More than half the yield of the Davy Crockett was radiation.
Neutrons are good at killing people inside metal boxes - tanks.
Which is why the Soviets spent so much effort on lining tanks with plastic (which stops neutrons) and doing things like putting fuel tanks in doors (diesel fuel stops neutrons nicely)
Though it did have the effect of turning the BMP1s into death traps in places like Afghanistan when the only means of escape for the troops inside was through the doors which were the source of the fire/explosion.
It should be. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and Russia is 11th.
It probably makes sense the UNSC members should be the US, China, Japan, the EU, the UK, India.
No, as Russia has a bigger military than Japan and the UK and at least the same size as the entire EU.
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
Because Japan has been committed to pacifism historically but that mentality is undergoing change. Also, real power is determined by the economic base of a country, which is needed to sustain a military. Japan's economy is three times larger than Russia. And India's GDP is 50% larger than Russia and growing faster.
How strange it is that you are peddling pro-Russian lies.
It is also interesting that France overtaking the UK for fifth place was covered everywhere by the Remainer press, but when the UK retook its place no-ome mentioned it.
Fuck me, I never realised there was a "remainer press". When I figure out my product or service to sell to the gullible via social media, can I put you down as a "possible" as a follower?
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
Any true Scottish democrat should understand it's for BJ and his ilk to decide when Scotland has another referendum. We would be better concentrating our efforts on listening to BJ's sermons on democracy in freedom loving Ukraine.
Ah, good. We seem to be getting somewhere, at last.
Visualise a fridge if you will, locked from the inside. A bellow emanates from it, muffled but still the recognisably orotund tones of BJ, the pm you lot are too cowardly to depose. 'Just let me at Sturgeon and the Nats' he roars.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Still keeping track of the at times quite frank Russia Today website (before it's banned), and see a piece by what appears to be a senior politician/commentator, describing the invasion in detached terms as an extremely drastic operation undertaken by the leadership which will lead to prolonged isolation.:
"The Russian leadership, which decided on extremely drastic steps, probably understood the consequences, or even consciously aspired to them. The page of cooperation with the West has been turned. This does not mean that isolationism will become the norm, but it does mark the end of an important historical chapter in political relations. The new Cold War will not end quickly."
He notably refrains from endorsing it. If that's typical of senior Russian observers, it does suggest that Putin will not be kept in office if the invasion is seen to fail.
"On one side, there is the exercise of classic hard power, which is guided by simple, unpolished, but plainly understandable principles – blood and soil. Meanwhile, on the other is a modern method of propagating interests and influence, realized through a set of ideological, communicative, and economic tools, which are effective and, at the same time, malleable – commonly referred to as ‘values’."
That is an extraordinary statement to be made on RT by the "chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy".
It specifically casts the (current) Russian leadership as "not modern", and "not effective" (by inference).
RT - the official voice of Russia - endorsing "blood and soil" nationalism.
There is, incidentally, a very similar passage in Mein Kampf or the second book damning League Of Nations style values vs "blood and soil" nationalism.
*off topic, but then the topic isn’t omg WWIII
What are battlefield nuclear weapons? Is it just the same as big nuclear weapons only designed to make smaller bang considering your own people on the battlefield
Are depleted uranium shells we used in Iraq that made many of our own service people ill classed as battlefield nuclear weapon?
No.
Battlefield nukes (tactical nukes) are low-yield weapons designed to punch a small hole in enemy formations. The US even had one, the Davy Crockett, with a yield of just 20 tonnes of TNT. I wouldn't have liked to fire it.
I think it was basically superseded by powerful conventional weapons or bombs, such as MOAB.
In a way...
At low yields nuclear weapons are primarily radiation generators. The Davy Crockett warhead had very little explosive in it - so lots of gammas and neutrons escape. More than half the yield of the Davy Crockett was radiation.
Neutrons are good at killing people inside metal boxes - tanks.
Which is why the Soviets spent so much effort on lining tanks with plastic (which stops neutrons) and doing things like putting fuel tanks in doors (diesel fuel stops neutrons nicely)
Though it did have the effect of turning the BMP1s into death traps in places like Afghanistan when the only means of escape for the troops inside was through the doors which were the source of the fire/explosion.
Indeed. The the bloody Americans stop fielding tactical nuclear weapons. As Hermann Kahn observed - enemies are like that; they seem to have a predilection for doing the things most inconvenient for you.
What we are not seeing, as we have before, is Labour's score dropping at all, they are up and around the 38-40 mark, i.e. 2017 levels.
.....yet..... In politics as in life nothing is inevitable. If the last 2 years haven't made that crystal clear I don't know what does.
Yes given the electoral volatility since 2020 I wouldn't underestimate Johnson completely TBH even though I do believe the Tories are now in deep trouble in the North of England. It would be foolish to completely preclude a Tory majority at the next election even under Johnson.
That said its interesting that Labour/Starmer support has only gone down 1% with RedfieldWilton at the same time as a Johnson has gained a boost.
I can see the Tories doing a lot better than expected in the local elections in London, Scotland and the Midlands now even if they still get thumped in the northern met districts.
Labour should try and massively play down expectations for the local elections particularly in London.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Depends on the grounds. I was surprised to hear someone mention earlier today that there is actually a procedure in place to do this. But I got the impression it was based on the country having waged unprovoked war. So I am not sure it would set any precedent for further change.
That said I am not sure what benefit it serves. Even if Russia were prevented from vetoing resolutions we all know that UN resolutions are pretty toothless anyway.
Further I can't see China going along with it even if they are lukewarm towards Russia as they might worry they would be on the receiving end later on when they attack Taiwan.
Lots of reasons why I don't think this will happen but none of them relate to the UK.
I just think you do it once for X reason it becomes mentally easier to imagine doing it again for Y reason, though procedurally and diplomatically would be harder.
As to benefit, I'd say it would be a massive actually. Putin appears obsessed with status, not getting that veto power would enrage him.
But so many nukes I think the security aspect of the security council would prevent removal.
I think not. Putin will not need any justifiable reason if he decides to go nuclear. It will be his rational (in his mind) decision.
He would need to get the military to agree. It is not his sole decision, contrary to myth.
It is hopefully populated with one or two strong people to say No, as opposed to cowering yes men whose wives and children are held hostage at gun point.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
In other comic relief, when you confuse “the SNP” with “the public”:
EXCLUSIVE: The Scottish Government has refused to say whether it has sought the views of law officers about the competence of the indyref bill, saying it is not in the public interest
Opposition have said "uncomfortable truths" are being kept secret
Given a majority of the Scottish public who voted voted to have a referendum, it's not an unreasonable elision.
They already had one. No point me voting for a referendum on Brexit. We had one. My side lost.
They explicitly voted to have another referendum. Rather less defeatist.
That is the problem with Scottish Nationalism, no sorry nationalism; democracy is good, provided it provides the answer we want.
Tell me, if Scotland had a referendum and separatism won, would you be in favour of another referendum 5 or 6 years later to ask whether they would like to rejoin?
Would you be in favour of some parts of Scotland retaining their membership of UK, rather like some Scots Nats suggested visa vis Scotland and membership of the EU?
Not relevant. The EU was never exerting sovereignty over the UK.
FFS! The UK has NOT "exerted" sovereignty over Scotland. Scotland IS the UK, is fully part of it and voted to remain part of it by democratic majority in 2014. You will not answer the question because you know the rationality of my question. IN other words you, and Scottish Nationalists in general want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. If you were to get it you would exert every sinew to ensure that the vote was not offered again. Very Putinesque.
What else is the abandonment of the Sewell convention?
Given the massive changes since 2014 and the votes in Westminster AND Holyrood for pro-referendum parties, what else is the refusal of a referendum but exerting sovereignty, or at least the London notion of sovereignty?
And your partitionist fantasies are in particularly bad taste at present.
PS: I have to go and do some work, so you shouldn't bother replying (will save your energies for the other news, seriously).
In case you are still looking (I bet you are) I am giggling at a Scottish Nationalist talking of "partitionist fantasies". Separatism is another area it seems where it has to be the "right type" of separatism!
Did pop in again. Not surprised. Right kind of democracy, evidently. Off to my report again.
What we are not seeing, as we have before, is Labour's score dropping at all, they are up and around the 38-40 mark, i.e. 2017 levels.
.....yet..... In politics as in life nothing is inevitable. If the last 2 years haven't made that crystal clear I don't know what does.
Yes given the electoral volatility since 2020 I wouldn't underestimate Johnson completely TBH even though I do believe the Tories are now in deep trouble in the North of England. It would be foolish to completely preclude a Tory majority at the next election even under Johnson.
That said its interesting that Labour/Starmer support has only gone down 1% with RedfieldWilton at the same time as a Johnson has gained a boost.
I can see the Tories doing a lot better than expected in the local elections in London, Scotland and the Midlands now even if they still get thumped in the northern met districts.
Labour should try and massively play down expectations for the local elections particularly in London.
London will likely still be bad.
Labour lead by 36% in London on the latest Yougov but by only 20% in the North while the Tories still lead by 1% in the Midlands and 10% in the South
The hardest thing to deal with, personally, is the realisation that what is best for Ukraine may not be what is best for us. We can support Ukraine to a certain point, but cannot sweep in to save them without very grave consequences for our wider, long term goal of defeating Putin, which starts by isolating Russia in the world.
I think that is why the refugee question is more important than I previously thought. If we can't save Ukraine, then we can still have a duty to help.
Amazing footage from Melitopol of Ukrainians stopping the onward advance of a Russian convoy and chanting “Occupants!” and “Murderers!” The jittery Russians are firing into the air pic.twitter.com/j3jypGJdgz https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1498655849178402820
Ukrainians copying some Extinction Rebellion tactics. Very brave of them against armed Russians. Russian troops clearly not prepared to run over Ukrainian civilians.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
It should be. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and Russia is 11th.
It probably makes sense the UNSC members should be the US, China, Japan, the EU, the UK, India.
No, as Russia has a bigger military than Japan and the UK and at least the same size as the entire EU.
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
It's shockingly stupid to believe any of Russia's official military statistics after the last few days.
Most of the Russian military has not even got to Kyiv yet, hence the 40 mile convoy of Russian tanks and troops now heading to the Ukranian capital.
The battle for Kyiv has barely begun
Which in itself says something about delays and slowed objectives. Every day Ukraine can buy itself is priceless.
This is the sort of thing I mentioned below. The column was first reported yesterday at a shorter length, and we're still talking about it, as if has been static all this time. It could be anywhere now (well, say 12 hours driving at 30 MPH to maintain a column means 360 miles. These figures have been plucked out of my backside, and may smell more than a little off.)
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Apparently, thinking like that means you have been playing Warhammer 40K....
OK. Not even sure what that is. Clearly the Iraqis didn't either
A certain regular on PB suggested this morning that any idea of attacking that column, in the manner that such column have been attacked many times, meant that you must be a Warhammer 40K player - https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_Wiki
Just cashed out my Ukraine to win Eurovision at 3.55. +£200 profit.
Well done!
A lot of talk here about what to do with the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in Glasgow on 24 March.
A lot of Scots consider it grossly unfair to continue with the match when we would effectively be playing a Youth team, as most adult Ukrainian men are serving their country or otherwise prohibited from turning up.
Consensus seems to be that we should concede the match and they get the 3 points, plus donating all the ticket money to war relief.
Why not give Ukraine a bye all the way to the final and let a Ukrainian youth lift the World Cup trophy?
I think “all the way to the final” might be pushing it. To the finals maybe but Ukrainians are a proud sporting people and would rather watch some actual matches.
There are only 3 places left - the winner of Scotland v Ukraine plays Wales or Austria
Mr Dickson was suggesting handing them the trophy, not just a place in the finals.
It should be. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and Russia is 11th.
It probably makes sense the UNSC members should be the US, China, Japan, the EU, the UK, India.
No, as Russia has a bigger military than Japan and the UK and at least the same size as the entire EU.
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
Because Japan has been committed to pacifism historically but that mentality is undergoing change. Also, real power is determined by the economic base of a country, which is needed to sustain a military. Japan's economy is three times larger than Russia. And India's GDP is 50% larger than Russia and growing faster.
How strange it is that you are peddling pro-Russian lies.
Real power in the economic arena is determined by economic influence.
Real power in the military arena is determined by the size of your army, navy and airforce and Russia has the third biggest armed forces in the world after the USA and China.
Russia also has the most nuclear missiles of any nation in the world. Japan's economic strength would not be enough to prevent and hold off a Russian invasion of it
India likely will join the UN Security Council by 2050 however, it is the 4th strongest military already and will soon be in the 5th largest economies too
On topic the Ukraine crisis has not changed what made Johnson unfit for office before the crisis. Yes he has had a pretty good crisis - though I suspect a lot of that was down to the groundwork the U.K. has been laying down for seven years in the Ukraine, very little, if any if it to do with Johnson. Changing leader in the middle of an international crisis is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Nick Palmer's comments he other day about Boris made me re-evaluate our PM a little. He's obviously not thick or unintelligent, and neither is he lazy: anyone lazy would not put themselves up for election. It's too much bother.
Instead, I wonder if he has a lazy mind. Too often, he chooses not to think too heavily about a topic, perhaps even being swayed by whomever he's talked to recently (e.g. Paterson). I've worked with someone like that in the past: highly intelligent with excellent qualifications, but all too often chose not to use his brain and did random stuff instead. He was also quite impulsive, and I think Johnson might be a little that way too.
I hesitate to speculate too much about people whom I know, even slightly, but that sounds quite likely to me. I recognise it a bit in myself (maybe most of us are like that to some extent?) - if I find that I can get by in an argument with a half-baked thought, why bother to bake it all the way? Johnson's experience of life is that his talent in expressing himself engagingly and ability to deal with the PR parts of politics well enables him to wing it.
That works perfectly well as, say, London Mayor, where the amount of detailed thinking that you need to do is really limited. Likewise if writing pastiches about the EU, or making a speech about Brexit. It also works quite well in general terms at time of war in another country - express ringing solidarity, visit a church, sign off an arms shipment, no great mental effort needed to do them all with vigour and competence.
For developing a detailed plan for the longer term, perhaps not so much.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Apparently, thinking like that means you have been playing Warhammer 40K....
OK. Not even sure what that is. Clearly the Iraqis didn't either
A certain regular on PB suggested this morning that any idea of attacking that column, in the manner that such column have been attacked many times, meant that you must be a Warhammer 40K player - https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_Wiki
I don't recall making any recommendations for *how* it could be attacked. Just observed that it was odd that it hadn't been, particularly when it presented such an open target.
Just cashed out my Ukraine to win Eurovision at 3.55. +£200 profit.
Well done!
A lot of talk here about what to do with the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in Glasgow on 24 March.
A lot of Scots consider it grossly unfair to continue with the match when we would effectively be playing a Youth team, as most adult Ukrainian men are serving their country or otherwise prohibited from turning up.
Consensus seems to be that we should concede the match and they get the 3 points, plus donating all the ticket money to war relief.
Why not give Ukraine a bye all the way to the final and let a Ukrainian youth lift the World Cup trophy?
I think “all the way to the final” might be pushing it. To the finals maybe but Ukrainians are a proud sporting people and would rather watch some actual matches.
There are only 3 places left - the winner of Scotland v Ukraine plays Wales or Austria
Mr Dickson was suggesting handing them the trophy, not just a place in the finals.
Precedent for when HYUFD unleashes the doggies of war upon Scotland. It's the only fecking way we'll have a chance at it..
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Amazing footage from Melitopol of Ukrainians stopping the onward advance of a Russian convoy and chanting “Occupants!” and “Murderers!” The jittery Russians are firing into the air pic.twitter.com/j3jypGJdgz https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1498655849178402820
Ukrainians copying some Extinction Rebellion tactics. Very brave of them against armed Russians. Russian troops clearly not prepared to run over Ukrainian civilians.
Brave.
One thing I'd note: some of these long-nosed vehicles make it hard to see what's exactly in front of your radiator. It wouldn't surprise me if the driver could not see some of those people. It's the same with diggers when bulldozing/digging, which is why you often have spotters outside.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
It should be. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and Russia is 11th.
It probably makes sense the UNSC members should be the US, China, Japan, the EU, the UK, India.
No, as Russia has a bigger military than Japan and the UK and at least the same size as the entire EU.
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
Because Japan has been committed to pacifism historically but that mentality is undergoing change. Also, real power is determined by the economic base of a country, which is needed to sustain a military. Japan's economy is three times larger than Russia. And India's GDP is 50% larger than Russia and growing faster.
How strange it is that you are peddling pro-Russian lies.
Real power in the economic arena is determined by economic influence.
Real power in the military arena is determined by the size of your army, navy and airforce and Russia has the third biggest armed forces in the world after the USA and China.
Russia also has the most nuclear missiles of any nation in the world. Japan's economic strength would not be enough to prevent and hold off a Russian invasion of it
India likely will join the UN Security Council by 2050 however, it is the 4th strongest military already and will soon be in the 5th largest economies too
Sign. Again.
Russia has a gigantic conscript army. Of that a tiny fraction is deployable and usable. Recent events suggest that even that is not exactly..... er... world beating....
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
Apparently, thinking like that means you have been playing Warhammer 40K....
OK. Not even sure what that is. Clearly the Iraqis didn't either
A certain regular on PB suggested this morning that any idea of attacking that column, in the manner that such column have been attacked many times, meant that you must be a Warhammer 40K player - https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_Wiki
The reason for the attack column being stalled outside Kyiv is a single broken down tank, blocking a vital bridge.
Latest high resolution picture suggest is it a WWII vintage British Covenanter.
Infared pictures indicate it broke down due to overheating - a common problem with the type.
Experts are puzzled by the presence of such a vehicle - "We knew the Russians are throwing any old shit into the battle, but really?"
Whatever happens the Russian Military looks ridiculous in Ukraine.
Out of date equipment, no logistics, no central command and soldiers who do not want to be there.
I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future
Our dear friend @HYUFD is *not* leading the column.
On topic the Ukraine crisis has not changed what made Johnson unfit for office before the crisis. Yes he has had a pretty good crisis - though I suspect a lot of that was down to the groundwork the U.K. has been laying down for seven years in the Ukraine, very little, if any if it to do with Johnson. Changing leader in the middle of an international crisis is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Nick Palmer's comments he other day about Boris made me re-evaluate our PM a little. He's obviously not thick or unintelligent, and neither is he lazy: anyone lazy would not put themselves up for election. It's too much bother.
Instead, I wonder if he has a lazy mind. Too often, he chooses not to think too heavily about a topic, perhaps even being swayed by whomever he's talked to recently (e.g. Paterson). I've worked with someone like that in the past: highly intelligent with excellent qualifications, but all too often chose not to use his brain and did random stuff instead. He was also quite impulsive, and I think Johnson might be a little that way too.
I hesitate to speculate too much about people whom I know, even slightly, but that sounds quite likely to me. I recognise it a bit in myself (maybe most of us are like that to some extent?) - if I find that I can get by in an argument with a half-baked thought, why bother to bake it all the way? Johnson's experience of life is that his talent in expressing himself engagingly and ability to deal with the PR parts of politics well enables him to wing it.
That works perfectly well as, say, London Mayor, where the amount of detailed thinking that you need to do is really limited. Likewise if writing pastiches about the EU, or making a speech about Brexit. It also works quite well in general terms at time of war in another country - express ringing solidarity, visit a church, sign off an arms shipment, no great mental effort needed to do them all with vigour and competence.
For developing a detailed plan for the longer term, perhaps not so much.
Yet oddly, a lot of the long-term planning decisions made during the pandemic were good. Things like vaccine procurement. I do wonder if he can absorb information and make decisions when he thinks he really needs to, the rest of the time he just does the first thing that comes into his mind. If he doesn't think it's important, he doesn't think about it.
I'm like that when speaking. I'm always thinking about the last sentence I said whilst speaking the next one. In other words, my mouth runs off.
BTW, I agree with your first line. It's a bit naughty of me.
Am I right in thinking it still looks like it is not going well for Putin? Sounds like RU soldiers are not happy and there's a convoy just waiting to be hit to feck by Ukr air force. Meanwhile there's a run on the banks.
Amazing footage from Melitopol of Ukrainians stopping the onward advance of a Russian convoy and chanting “Occupants!” and “Murderers!” The jittery Russians are firing into the air pic.twitter.com/j3jypGJdgz https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1498655849178402820
Ukrainians copying some Extinction Rebellion tactics. Very brave of them against armed Russians. Russian troops clearly not prepared to run over Ukrainian civilians.
I wonder whether there is any work being done on encouraging Russian soldiers in the column to desert? It is odd that it hasn't yet been attacked. It looks like a turkey shoot to me for even an outgunned airforce, or a ground force with anti-tank weaponry?
The 40 mile column is just puzzling. Even if terrain is bad elsewhere you wouldn't put all your mechanised assets in one long column to be taken out by aerial attack even if you thought you had complete control of the skies. Are there other reasons? Possibly following each other as they have no clue where else they are going?
Also if they are all bunched together, what happens if one vehicle in the middle runs out of fuel. Won't it cause the whole column to crawl to a halt? It would be very difficult to get a tanker to the middle of the column to refuel it.
To me the long column seems to be more due to poor logistics than anything else. I'm no military expert but it just doesn't seem to make much sense. I hope I am right.
The reason for the attack column being stalled outside Kyiv is a single broken down tank, blocking a vital bridge.
Latest high resolution picture suggest is it a WWII vintage British Covenanter.
Infared pictures indicate it broke down due to overheating - a common problem with the type.
Experts are puzzled by the presence of such a vehicle - "We knew the Russians are throwing any old shit into the battle, but really?"
Whatever happens the Russian Military looks ridiculous in Ukraine.
Out of date equipment, no logistics, no central command and soldiers who do not want to be there.
#Ukraine: More modern military materiel abandoned by Russian soldiers near Poltava - a Tor-M2 short-range SAM system and T-80U tank. https://t.co/Y876Bbjfiy
It's like the old Vietnam war joke:
"ARVN issue M16 for sale, as new, only dropped once."
It should be. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and Russia is 11th.
It probably makes sense the UNSC members should be the US, China, Japan, the EU, the UK, India.
No, as Russia has a bigger military than Japan and the UK and at least the same size as the entire EU.
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
Because Japan has been committed to pacifism historically but that mentality is undergoing change. Also, real power is determined by the economic base of a country, which is needed to sustain a military. Japan's economy is three times larger than Russia. And India's GDP is 50% larger than Russia and growing faster.
How strange it is that you are peddling pro-Russian lies.
Real power in the economic arena is determined by economic influence.
Real power in the military arena is determined by the size of your army, navy and airforce and Russia has the third biggest armed forces in the world after the USA and China.
Russia also has the most nuclear missiles of any nation in the world. Japan's economic strength would not be enough to prevent and hold off a Russian invasion of it
India likely will join the UN Security Council by 2050 however, it is the 4th strongest military already and will soon be in the 5th largest economies too
Sign. Again.
Russia has a gigantic conscript army. Of that a tiny fraction is deployable and usable. Recent events suggest that even that is not exactly..... er... world beating....
Some are conscripts but not all.
Russia also has enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of the western world
Just cashed out my Ukraine to win Eurovision at 3.55. +£200 profit.
Well done!
A lot of talk here about what to do with the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in Glasgow on 24 March.
A lot of Scots consider it grossly unfair to continue with the match when we would effectively be playing a Youth team, as most adult Ukrainian men are serving their country or otherwise prohibited from turning up.
Consensus seems to be that we should concede the match and they get the 3 points, plus donating all the ticket money to war relief.
Why not give Ukraine a bye all the way to the final and let a Ukrainian youth lift the World Cup trophy?
I think “all the way to the final” might be pushing it. To the finals maybe but Ukrainians are a proud sporting people and would rather watch some actual matches.
There are only 3 places left - the winner of Scotland v Ukraine plays Wales or Austria
Mr Dickson was suggesting handing them the trophy, not just a place in the finals.
Precedent for when HYUFD unleashes the doggies of war upon Scotland. It's the only fecking way we'll have a chance at it..
@HYUFD did it's true receive a lot of stick about certain comments pertaining to Scotland and the Westminster Government's reactions to any potential move towards independence, I'm sure many of them being deliberately provocative.
These past few days, however, he has shown that PB fantasy and actual crisis are well-defined in his head; he has been one of the saner posters on the Ukraine situation.
Sounds too good to be true, but the idea hes genuinely baffled by slow progress would be nice.
It may be true, fits the narrative and feels quite plausible, but Western intelligence would probably be putting out similar stories whether true or not. My guess is it is true but that is driven more by events than the "intelligence" report.
Comments
But here's a thought: what happens if Putin, in seclusion somewhere safe, is not getting the full story from his generals on the front line? What if he's like Hitler in his bunker (*) as the Russians approached Berlin, issuing orders that had little reality to the situation on the ground?
How much of this battle is being driven from Moscow/the leadership, and how much by officers near the front?
(*) He's love that comparison
Europe will NOT transfer fighter planes to Ukraine.
Poland and Slovakia have decided not to provide jets.
🇺🇦🇪🇺🇵🇱🇸🇰
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1498668000983060480
Tory MPs won't pick up a pen
Given the massive changes since 2014 and the votes in Westminster AND Holyrood for pro-referendum parties, what else is the refusal of a referendum but exerting sovereignty, or at least the London notion of sovereignty?
And your partitionist fantasies are in particularly bad taste at present.
PS: I have to go and do some work, so you shouldn't bother replying (will save your energies for the other news, seriously).
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19960324.snp-president-michael-russell-utterly-crass-linking-ukrainian-struggle-scottish-independence/
"THE SNP president Michael Russell has been accused of an “utterly crass” attempt to link the Ukrainian struggle against Russia with the pursuit of Scottish independence.
"Writing about the invasion and crisis in Ukraine, he said the past need not dictate the future, “whether that be rule from Moscow, or the result of an eight-year-old referendum”.
*this doesn't apply recently in by-elections where, quite often, something has happened. But of the X to be gone by Y type bets there's often overestimation of the likelihood of it happening. Just because someone should, does not mean they will.
"And far away behind their lines the partisans are stirring in the forest
Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise
You'll never know, you'll never know which way to turn, which way to look you'll never see us
As we're stealing through the blackness of the night
You'll never know, you'll never hear us"
Written about a different war, facing a different enemy, on the same land.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60374800
At low yields nuclear weapons are primarily radiation generators. The Davy Crockett warhead had very little explosive in it - so lots of gammas and neutrons escape. More than half the yield of the Davy Crockett was radiation.
Neutrons are good at killing people inside metal boxes - tanks.
Which is why the Soviets spent so much effort on lining tanks with plastic (which stops neutrons) and doing things like putting fuel tanks in doors (diesel fuel stops neutrons nicely)
India's economy is not much bigger than Russia's
That said I am not sure what benefit it serves. Even if Russia were prevented from vetoing resolutions we all know that UN resolutions are pretty toothless anyway.
Further I can't see China going along with it even if they are lukewarm towards Russia as they might worry they would be on the receiving end later on when they attack Taiwan.
Lots of reasons why I don't think this will happen but none of them relate to the UK.
I also know people who know some of the shoutier characters from that debacle. Sympathy is short on that side too.
That is rather the point of the UN Security Council
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1498660951100379142
No idea if this is genuine or not but fits with the pattern of there being serious Russian logistical challenges.
Putin will not need any justifiable reason if he decides to go nuclear.
It will be his rational (in his mind) decision.
How strange it is that you are peddling pro-Russian lies.
The battle for Kyiv has barely begun
You deserve each other.
That said its interesting that Labour/Starmer support has only gone down 1% with RedfieldWilton at the same time as a Johnson has gained a boost.
I can see the Tories doing a lot better than expected in the local elections in London, Scotland and the Midlands now even if they still get thumped in the northern met districts.
Labour should try and massively play down expectations for the local elections particularly in London.
As to benefit, I'd say it would be a massive actually. Putin appears obsessed with status, not getting that veto power would enrage him.
But so many nukes I think the security aspect of the security council would prevent removal.
Labour lead by 36% in London on the latest Yougov but by only 20% in the North while the Tories still lead by 1% in the Midlands and 10% in the South
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/02/28/voting-intention-con-34-lab-39-24-25-feb
I think that is why the refugee question is more important than I previously thought. If we can't save Ukraine, then we can still have a duty to help.
The reason for the attack column being stalled outside Kyiv is a single broken down tank, blocking a vital bridge.
Latest high resolution picture suggest is it a WWII vintage British Covenanter.
Infared pictures indicate it broke down due to overheating - a common problem with the type.
Experts are puzzled by the presence of such a vehicle - "We knew the Russians are throwing any old shit into the battle, but really?"
https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1498655849178402820
Ukrainians copying some Extinction Rebellion tactics. Very brave of them against armed Russians. Russian troops clearly not prepared to run over Ukrainian civilians.
Edit: Wikipedia says it was obsolete in 1944.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/putin-is-frustrated-lashing-out-at-his-inner-circle-report-says/
Real power in the military arena is determined by the size of your army, navy and airforce and Russia has the third biggest armed forces in the world after the USA and China.
Russia also has the most nuclear missiles of any nation in the world. Japan's economic strength would not be enough to prevent and hold off a Russian invasion of it
India likely will join the UN Security Council by 2050 however, it is the 4th strongest military already and will soon be in the 5th largest economies too
Cough @HYUFD, tanks, etc Cough Cough
That works perfectly well as, say, London Mayor, where the amount of detailed thinking that you need to do is really limited. Likewise if writing pastiches about the EU, or making a speech about Brexit. It also works quite well in general terms at time of war in another country - express ringing solidarity, visit a church, sign off an arms shipment, no great mental effort needed to do them all with vigour and competence.
For developing a detailed plan for the longer term, perhaps not so much.
He says Nato is a defensive alliance and that directly getting involved with conflict in Russia is a 'huge step'
'That is not on the agenda'
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1498676957663346695
One thing I'd note: some of these long-nosed vehicles make it hard to see what's exactly in front of your radiator. It wouldn't surprise me if the driver could not see some of those people. It's the same with diggers when bulldozing/digging, which is why you often have spotters outside.
Indeed this is the go to reference, and it is the same @NickPalmer:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/the-best-of-board-wargaming/author/palmer-nicholas/
https://twitter.com/HC_Richardson/status/1498658220545658881
one of them seems to be embedded with the Russians...
https://twitter.com/borzou/status/1498393087952961541
Out of date equipment, no logistics, no central command and soldiers who do not want to be there.
Russia has a gigantic conscript army. Of that a tiny fraction is deployable and usable. Recent events suggest that even that is not exactly..... er... world beating....
I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future
I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future
I must remember to include a {sarcasm} tag in future
Our dear friend @HYUFD is *not* leading the column.
I'm like that when speaking. I'm always thinking about the last sentence I said whilst speaking the next one. In other words, my mouth runs off.
BTW, I agree with your first line. It's a bit naughty of me.
Am I right in thinking it still looks like it is not going well for Putin? Sounds like RU soldiers are not happy and there's a convoy just waiting to be hit to feck by Ukr air force. Meanwhile there's a run on the banks.
It's like the old Vietnam war joke:
"ARVN issue M16 for sale, as new, only dropped once."
Russia also has enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of the western world
These past few days, however, he has shown that PB fantasy and actual crisis are well-defined in his head; he has been one of the saner posters on the Ukraine situation.