Considering how much Russia keeps talking about "demilitarisation" I think its important the world should say "you first" to them.
The notion that Ukraine could or ever should be "demilitarised" or "neutral" ever again after this is utterly barmy. Russia, like Germany post-WWII possibly should be.
'Do as we demand or we will kill you' does make calling conceding to those demands 'neutrality' odd.
Lavrov is coming out with a whole range of signals at the moment, from the emollient to the aggressive. It's also him giving them out all the time. Very odd.
Lavrov clearly fancies Liz Truss.
I have heard that quite few Russian men in leadership positions who met Thatcher were quite... interested by her.
The whole "Misogynist Meets a Strong Woman" thing....
In the interests of transparency on poetrybetting.com, I'm in the JossiasJessop camp - poetry generally doesn't move me, just words awkwardly arranged. I dont dislike but I dont get it like most.
I hate jazz though.
I can understand disliking it, even though I like it myself, but hate ?
I've got some confidence in Zelenskiy. He could have said "retribution", here, which is already feeling like the strong temptation in some western societies.
Versailles was all about the reparations. Apart from the bit about disarming Germany so they couldn't fight another war....
And yes, the Germans could have paid it - it was less of an economic burden than they imposed on the French in 1870.
The problem was that the military elite, who'd been selling "we are about to win" up until 10 minutes before the refs whistle, switched (seamlessly) to "we were robbed".
Back to the Balkans, one thing you *don't* get in Serb Ultra Nationalist circles is "We were wining, but". They know they lost.
But you also have to look at emotion versus rational calculation, and what led the process. The non-German powers after 1918-19 weren't particularly interested in whether Germany could sustainably pay it in the long-term or not.
Because they could.
That they didn't want to, that they'd rather put the money into rearming themselves, is an entirely different matter.
Hmm. We, Clemenceau in particular, inflicted on Germany a settlement, the perceived humiliating nature of which became a hugely effective rallying cry for that country in the run up to WWII. You may think that was a masterstroke; we will never know but my view is that it did more harm than good.
My view is that there would have been a rallying either way because the issue is simpler: Germans didn't accept that they'd lost and they would lose again. If you think you've been 'robbed' or 'betrayed' and another push will see you over the line, then why accept the last result however humiliating or not it is?
Even without Versailles, I suspect WWII would still have happened, as people simply were not willing to accept peace at that stage.
Its worth remembering that some of the Axis Powers in WWII were Allied Powers in WWI - Italy and Japan were victors in World War I so didn't join the Axis in WWII because they were humiliated by Versailles.
The 'stab in the back' myth was very prominent in Germany. Its important to remember that Germany won on the Eastern front, and then imposed conditions every bit as harsh as Versailles on the defeated enemies. In November 1918 German armies still stood outside the Reich. Now it was clear that the war was lost, but to the front-line soldier, perhaps less so. And never forget the German military tradition.
The harshness of Versailles clearly didn't help, and the whole war guilt clause can be considered contentious in an era where ALL combatants entered the war with aims in mind. From a French perspective, millions of young Frenchmen were dead, millions more were wounded, some permanently. Large swathes of France had been occupied, and towns and villages destroyed. Villages where the fighting was heavy, such as the Somme, and Ypres were no more than piles of brick dust in the mud. There was a huge desire for compensation, but also to ensure that Germany could not do this again. Sadly, in striving to ensure this, the Germans were back just 20 years later, and the men who had served in the trenches now saw their sons fighting again, or conscripted as forced labour in the Reich.
Perhaps we are more mature now - SA's truth and reconciliation and NI suggest maybe. But the despicable invasion of Ukraine by Putin suggests we have a long way to go.
Fair to say that we're now in something of a race between Russian forces encircling Kyiv, Western arms getting to Ukrainians & Western sanctions obliterating the Russian economy?
How many nights sleeping in the cold, before the soldiers give up and walk into the nearest town with their hands in the air?
And the forecast is getting colder. Remember how people used to say you shouldn't invade Russia in the winter? Although apparently we're now supposed to be in the mud season.
I posted it before and I'll post it again. The BBC Russian language website has gone from 3.1m to 10.7m views in a week. That seems pretty big.
It's more complicated than that. The problem is if you invade in midsummer like Napoleon and Hitler you get to Moscow in time for winter. Big place
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
Lavrov is on now saying the aim isn’t to just “demilitarise or denazify” Ukraine. Presuming that means the aim is to occupy the whole country. Ranting about Liz Truss, the French, America owning Europe..
..how that works out for Russia will be fascinating.
Uh-oh. So reality hasn't broken through yet, after all.
As Lavrov is just Putins messenger, it’s a fascinating insight into Putins mind. Clear he sees conflict as wider than just Ukraine.
Also clear that Putins generals aren’t telling him the whole truth about Russian military capability
As with Saddam
Memo to despots: inspecting your troops is not purely ceremonial. Do it, and make sure you are not being Potemkined.
Don't many despots have deliberately weak armies, other than a core presidential guard, to reduce the chances of overthrow?
Of course, most (though not all) of them are happy to oppress their own territory rather than launch a war of conquest which requires a good army.
"Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the centrist Democrat who abruptly ended talks over the sprawling spending plan in December, outlined the broad strokes of a package he could support, after weeks of declining to discuss details." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/biden-pivot-moderate-agenda.html
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick If the BBC have totally ignored the Paulette Hamilton story it’s very serious. Saying it’s on the eve of a by-election is no excuse. When I was Newsnight reporter I did story of Labour fiddling election expenses in Wirral South by-election. And we transmitted night before polling
Not a usual suspect when it comes to criticising the BBC.
In the interests of transparency on poetrybetting.com, I'm in the JossiasJessop camp - poetry generally doesn't move me, just words awkwardly arranged. I dont dislike but I dont get it like most.
I hate jazz though.
I can understand disliking it, even though I like it myself, but hate ?
"Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the centrist Democrat who abruptly ended talks over the sprawling spending plan in December, outlined the broad strokes of a package he could support, after weeks of declining to discuss details." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/biden-pivot-moderate-agenda.html
Powerful man, for now. Too late for the rest to get any benefit from the public?
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
A throwaway comment on the radio yesterday said Putin's approval had risen 12% because of this. Don't know how trustworthy that is, but it doesn't augur well for any swift overthrow hopes.
I saw similar on twitter, supported by polling. However the polling was conducted by the (Russian) state, so…
The Ukrainian military has been using “Punisher” stealth drones that can target fuel storage, ammunition supplies and electronic warfare stations up to 30 miles behind enemy lines. They've carried out up to 60 "successful" missions since the invasion began
That is something that western governments have worried about for years.
I knocked up a fully autonomous RC UAV about 10 years ago using a standard microcontroller and some open source control software. It still flies but is somewhat outdated compared with modern kit.
It is built to carry a compact camera (told you it was outdated) set to auto-shoot although it can be programmed to fly to a specific point and take individual pictures.
I could probably knock up one of those in a week in the garage using just hobby parts, although it does appear to be a nicely constructed wing.
"If the operation hadn't started, on literally the next day Nato would have launched an operation, but using Ukraine's Neonazis and Banderites. We got in their first, which means we saved hundreds of thousands of lives""
"Moscow would not let Ukraine keep infrastructure that threatened Russia, he said. Moscow could also not tolerate what he said was a military threat from Ukraine, he said, adding that he was convinced that Russia was right over Ukraine.
“The thought of nuclear is constantly spinning in the heads of western politicians but not in the heads of Russians,” he said. “I assure you that we will not allow any kind of provocation to unbalance us.”
Russia did not feel politically isolated, and the question of how Ukraine lives should be defined by its people, he added."
Hmm. Definitely some major row-backs of Putin's position here.
Maybe they want martial law also to suppress criticism of a partial about-face.
So the Russian leadership
- Feels politically isolated - Thought of nuclear (weapons) are constantly spinning in their heads - See Ukraine as a military threat - for not losing immediately.
"Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the centrist Democrat who abruptly ended talks over the sprawling spending plan in December, outlined the broad strokes of a package he could support, after weeks of declining to discuss details." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/biden-pivot-moderate-agenda.html
Powerful man, for now. Too late for them to get any be
Lavrov is coming out with a whole range of signals at the moment, from the emollient to the aggressive. It's also him giving them out all the time. Very odd.
Much as I defer to the military strategists on here I think it is premature to determine that for one reason (logisitcs, morale, equipment readiness, whatever) or another, as evidenced by six pictures on twitter and one bbc picture of a tank with a thrown track, that the Russian invasion is failing.
This is not playing out in 24-hr news/twitter time. Best to wait a while to take stock before raising the winner's hand.
It's not that the Russian invasion is failing - they will probably still 'win', tactically - but Ukraine has not only exceeded our expectations but put a serious dent in Russia's ability to move on to the next domino; and meanwhile has allowed the west time to regroup. Who knows, in Russia's timeline, they may already have expected to have moved on to Moldova or Estonia. Ukraine is still resisting, a week into the invasion by one of the world's biggest militaries. Russia didn't expect that, and neither did I.
We may not have expected it, but I wonder whether our government did? Afterall we've been training and supplying Ukraine for years.
The thing that strikes me, looking back, is Boris's immediate video response saying from memory that "Russia must fail and be seen to fail" in its invasion. Biden from memory said similar too.
At the time that just struck me as typical Boris boosterism - but looking back, I wonder if there's more to it than that, and that Boris, Biden etc had war-gamed what is happening now?
If Russia can be defeated and lose this invasion, not just 'the peace' afterwards, then that is going to be a major paradigm shift going forwards.
Very much so. Five Eyes intelligence predicted the invasion well in advance, and it’s clear they knew what was coming and were preparing for it.
They had to tread the very fine line between making sure Ukraine wins, but not getting involved directly to avoid prodding the bear into taking the nuclear option. I think when Poland and others suggested handing fighter planes to the Ukranian Air Force, that probably crossed the line and NATO put a stop to it.
So far, it couldn’t have gone better for the allies. The Russian advance has been much slower than expected, compounded by logistics issues and a lack of air superiority, and the Ukranian defence has been exemplary, with good equipment and well-trained men and women.
Even if all they have managed is to slow the inevitable, the West is not done with Russia, the sanctions are there as long as Futin remains in charge.
(Lol, my spellchecker now corrects Putin to Futin).
I've got some confidence in Zelenskiy. He could have said "retribution", here, which is already feeling like the strong temptation in some western societies.
Versailles was all about the reparations. Apart from the bit about disarming Germany so they couldn't fight another war....
And yes, the Germans could have paid it - it was less of an economic burden than they imposed on the French in 1870.
The problem was that the military elite, who'd been selling "we are about to win" up until 10 minutes before the refs whistle, switched (seamlessly) to "we were robbed".
Back to the Balkans, one thing you *don't* get in Serb Ultra Nationalist circles is "We were wining, but". They know they lost.
But you also have to look at emotion versus rational calculation, and what led the process. The non-German powers after 1918-19 weren't particularly interested in whether Germany could sustainably pay it in the long-term or not.
Because they could.
That they didn't want to, that they'd rather put the money into rearming themselves, is an entirely different matter.
Hmm. We, Clemenceau in particular, inflicted on Germany a settlement, the perceived humiliating nature of which became a hugely effective rallying cry for that country in the run up to WWII. You may think that was a masterstroke; we will never know but my view is that it did more harm than good.
My view is that there would have been a rallying either way because the issue is simpler: Germans didn't accept that they'd lost and they would lose again. If you think you've been 'robbed' or 'betrayed' and another push will see you over the line, then why accept the last result however humiliating or not it is?
Even without Versailles, I suspect WWII would still have happened, as people simply were not willing to accept peace at that stage.
Its worth remembering that some of the Axis Powers in WWII were Allied Powers in WWI - Italy and Japan were victors in World War I so didn't join the Axis in WWII because they were humiliated by Versailles.
The 'stab in the back' myth was very prominent in Germany. Its important to remember that Germany won on the Eastern front, and then imposed conditions every bit as harsh as Versailles on the defeated enemies. In November 1918 German armies still stood outside the Reich. Now it was clear that the war was lost, but to the front-line soldier, perhaps less so. And never forget the German military tradition.
The harshness of Versailles clearly didn't help, and the whole war guilt clause can be considered contentious in an era where ALL combatants entered the war with aims in mind. From a French perspective, millions of young Frenchmen were dead, millions more were wounded, some permanently. Large swathes of France had been occupied, and towns and villages destroyed. Villages where the fighting was heavy, such as the Somme, and Ypres were no more than piles of brick dust in the mud. There was a huge desire for compensation, but also to ensure that Germany could not do this again. Sadly, in striving to ensure this, the Germans were back just 20 years later, and the men who had served in the trenches now saw their sons fighting again, or conscripted as forced labour in the Reich.
Perhaps we are more mature now - SA's truth and reconciliation and NI suggest maybe. But the despicable invasion of Ukraine by Putin suggests we have a long way to go.
I think, perhaps, that we are. A far more effective policy than seeking harsh punishment of Russia would be to rebuild postwar Ukraine better than before.
In the interests of transparency on poetrybetting.com, I'm in the JossiasJessop camp - poetry generally doesn't move me, just words awkwardly arranged. I dont dislike but I dont get it like most.
I hate jazz though.
I can understand disliking it, even though I like it myself, but hate ?
From Sky “Peace talks 'to resume at midday' The second round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine may start in Belarus at midday today (UK time), Belarusian state news agency Belta quoted chief Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky as saying. Delegations earlier met on the border of Belarus in an attempt to end Moscow's invasion, but did not reach a resolution and attacks have continued.”
*talks, getting to ceasefire and further talks. Peace?
I may not know much about these things, but I have mediated between family members and friends
There cannot be fair talks whilst cruise missiles and vacuum bombs are like knife to the throat of occupied country - if Ukraine start trading anything at all in this situation it will be very sad I think. Talks need to focus on now and future, not mention previous issues down the years. That two sides turn up with a line through somewhere of their list, at the top are trades, below bottom line cannot be traded. Each list is of the strictest secrecy, so anything we see in media is guesswork and fiction. Victory in “peace talks” is getting concessions from opponents on bottom lines? If it’s stalemate, surrendering a trade to get it moving can be dangerous because you may not get movement reciprocated, your opponent think you concedes that, what else will you give up. Whoever can walk away from the table without a deal is in a strong position, at stages this can be both, but favouring Russia at this moment in time now or not? 😕
Isn't there also the optics, in the wider world, of being seen to try for peace.
The Ukrainians have positioned themselves, very successfully, as the moderate & sensible people in this.
Engaging in peace talks while the Russian use cluster munitions against apartment blocks hurts the Russians internationally, not Ukraine.
It prevents the Jeremy Corbyn type stuff gathering any traction - "You can't say they are not trying for peace...."
"Moscow would not let Ukraine keep infrastructure that threatened Russia, he said. Moscow could also not tolerate what he said was a military threat from Ukraine, he said, adding that he was convinced that Russia was right over Ukraine.
“The thought of nuclear is constantly spinning in the heads of western politicians but not in the heads of Russians,” he said. “I assure you that we will not allow any kind of provocation to unbalance us.”
Russia did not feel politically isolated, and the question of how Ukraine lives should be defined by its people, he added."
Hmm. Definitely some major row-backs of Putin's position here.
Maybe they want martial law also to suppress criticism of a partial about-face.
So the Russian leadership
- Feels politically isolated - Thought of nuclear (weapons) are constantly spinning in their heads - See Ukraine as a military threat - for not losing immediately.
I don't agree on the second. This clearly changed rhetoric on nuclear has clearly coincided with no appearances from Putin over the last two days. It appears to be all Lavrov, or someone connected to him. You can't threaten the world and think only Russia matters in such a doomsday scenario, Hitler-style, with your outlets saying similar, and then talk about not being "unbalanced" by the situation. That part looks like a total back-spin, or even a clear repudiation of it.
I'm wondering how all the western intelligence is getting filtered through to the Ukrainians, as I assume is happening. Open phone line from the Pentagon?
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
Have we banned Russia Today?
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
Green policy is to leave NATO in the long term, unless they have changed it. Not a vote winner at the moment.
BTW, I wonder where the Finns stand on this merits of neutrality at this moment. A glance at a modern map and a historical atlas of Europe makes you think a bit.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation PD513 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military-oriented body, which imposes conflict cessation rather than encouraging peace building. As such, it is not a sustainable mechanism for maintaining peace in the world. In the long term, we would take the UK out of NATO. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US."
It's a big country, still plenty of people waiting for that pollster's call
Rating Group has a 1 day n=2000 poll from 1 Mar. Zelensky hits 93% support, 98% support the army. Support for Ukraine’s EU accession hits a record 86% (!!) percent, support for joining NATO at 76%. 88% believe #Ukraine will repel Russia. #SlavaUkraina
"Moscow would not let Ukraine keep infrastructure that threatened Russia, he said. Moscow could also not tolerate what he said was a military threat from Ukraine, he said, adding that he was convinced that Russia was right over Ukraine.
“The thought of nuclear is constantly spinning in the heads of western politicians but not in the heads of Russians,” he said. “I assure you that we will not allow any kind of provocation to unbalance us.”
Russia did not feel politically isolated, and the question of how Ukraine lives should be defined by its people, he added."
Hmm. Definitely some major row-backs of Putin's position here.
Maybe they want martial law also to suppress criticism of a partial about-face.
So the Russian leadership
- Feels politically isolated - Thought of nuclear (weapons) are constantly spinning in their heads - See Ukraine as a military threat - for not losing immediately.
I don't agree on the second. This clearly changed rhetoric on nuclear has clearly coincided with no appearances from Putin over the last two days. It appears to be all Lavrov, or someone connected to him. You can't threaten the world and think it's Russia's destiny, Hitler-style-, and then talk about not being "unbalanced" by the situation. That part looks like an almost total repudiation.
All true. Perhaps I need to re-calibrate my sarcasm. It just the whole "I am absolutely not obsessed with X. I never think about X. X is the least important thing in my life. X is irrelevant...." thing
The gob smacking stuff to me has been the appearance, on outlets like RT, of that stuff about how "blood and soil nationalism is understandable vs 'values'" - that is indeed straight Hitler thinking. When you tie that in with the Wagner group stuff....
Lavrov is coming out with a whole range of signals at the moment, from the emollient to the aggressive. It's also him giving them out all the time. Very odd.
He’s leaving 57 varieties of marker that can be referred back to after pretty much any outcome. I wouldn’t discount the sort of hysteria induced by being part of a regime that’s hit the buffers, mind.
The only poetry that I can understand is when it is set to music.
In particular Morning Heroes by Arthur Bliss. This was written around 1930 looking back at the first world war dedicated "To the Memory of my brother Francis Kennard Bliss and all other Comrades killed in battle"
The text comes from a variety of sources, including Drum Taps by Walt Whitman. The second movement is adapted from "First O Songs for a Prelude".
It starts:
First O songs for a prelude, Lightly strike on the stretch'd tympanum pride and joy in my city, How she led the rest to arms, how she gave the cue, How at once with lithe limbs unwaiting a moment she sprang, (O superb! O Manhattan, my own, my peerless! O strongest you in the hour of danger, in crisis! O truer than steel!) How you sprang—how you threw off the costumes of peace with indifferent hand, How your soft opera-music changed, and the drum and fife were heard in their stead, How you led to the war, (that shall serve for our prelude, songs of soldiers,) How Manhattan drum-taps led.
Forty years had I in my city seen soldiers parading, Forty years as a pageant, till unawares the lady of this teeming and turbulent city, Sleepless amid her ships, her houses, her incalculable wealth, With her million children around her, suddenly, At dead of night, at news from the south, Incens'd struck with clinch'd hand the pavement.
A shock electric, the night sustain'd it, Till with ominous hum our hive at daybreak pour'd out its myriads.
From the houses then and the workshops, and through all the doorways, Leapt they tumultuous, and lo! Manhattan arming.
To the drum-taps prompt, The young men falling in and arming, The mechanics arming, (the trowel, the jack-plane, the blacksmith's hammer, tost aside with precipitation,) The lawyer leaving his office and arming, the judge leaving the court, The driver deserting his wagon in the street, jumping down, throwing the reins abruptly down on the horses' backs, The salesman leaving the store, the boss, book-keeper, porter, all leaving; Squads gather everywhere by common consent and arm, The new recruits, even boys, the old men show them how to wear their accoutrements, they buckle the straps carefully, Outdoors arming, indoors arming, the flash of the musket-barrels, The white tents cluster in camps, the arm'd sentries around, the sunrise cannon and again at sunset, Arm'd regiments arrive every day, pass through the city, and embark from the wharves, (How good they look as they tramp down to the river, sweaty, with their guns on their shoulders! How I love them! how I could hug them, with their brown faces and their clothes and knapsacks cover'd with dust!) The blood of the city up-arm'd! arm'd! the cry everywhere, The flags flung out from the steeples of churches and from all the public buildings and stores, The tearful parting, the mother kisses her son, the son kisses his mother, (Loth is the mother to part, yet not a word does she speak to detain him,) ...
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
Maybe we should allow RT to broadcast but have presenters speak in high-pitched, mickey mouse voices.
As for neo-Czarist imperialism that is interesting. As is this article I saw the other day; no idea what kind of legitimacy either author or journal has.
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
Green policy is to leave NATO in the long term, unless they have changed it. Not a vote winner at the moment.
BTW, I wonder where the Finns stand on this merits of neutrality at this moment. A glance at a modern map and a historical atlas of Europe makes you think a bit.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation PD513 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military-oriented body, which imposes conflict cessation rather than encouraging peace building. As such, it is not a sustainable mechanism for maintaining peace in the world. In the long term, we would take the UK out of NATO. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US."
I feel like conflict cessation and encouraging peace building need to go hand in hand. If you only do one or the other it is not as effective.
I doubt the Greens would take a hit for it, it isn't a part of their policies most will know, many who do will like it, and those that don't will mostly think the other policies make up for that one.
I wonder if the Republic of Ireland's policy of strict neutrality and refusal to countenance membership of NATO could have some bearing on the talk about a border poll and unification.
Yes, Northern Ireland was taken out of the EU. But are people there content to be removed from NATO?
Just a thought. Not seen it mentioned anywhere.
Ireland's policy is not one of strict neutrality. It's never been like Switzerland was. And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral".
It's not impossible to see Ireland join NATO now.
I thought Sinn Fein were surging in the Irish polls? Are they NATO enthusiasts?
- And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral". - LOL
Sinn Fein are up to 35%, which looks high because it's now a split between three main parties, but it's not that impressive historically. FF received 41.6% in 2007, FG 36.1% in 2011.
And I didn't say there was a surge of support for NATO, just that membership wasn't impossible. It's an idea that it isn't a complete waste of time to discuss (unlike, say, Ireland leaving the EU).
It's a big country, still plenty of people waiting for that pollster's call
Rating Group has a 1 day n=2000 poll from 1 Mar. Zelensky hits 93% support, 98% support the army. Support for Ukraine’s EU accession hits a record 86% (!!) percent, support for joining NATO at 76%. 88% believe #Ukraine will repel Russia. #SlavaUkraina
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
A throwaway comment on the radio yesterday said Putin's approval had risen 12% because of this. Don't know how trustworthy that is, but it doesn't augur well for any swift overthrow hopes.
Yes, all the reports I’m reading say that Russian state propaganda INSIDE Russia is working very well. They all believe this is a defensive move against nasty Ukrainian fascists. And of course people rally to the flag in any war, even one as rubbish and wicked as this (even Iraq had majority support in the UK at one point)
I am a bit blue today. After a horrible plague, a horrible war? It feels like this is a new pattern in human affairs. After decades of things generally getting better, now they are generally getting worse, and this will continue for some time
I'm keeping abrest of Russian propaganda, and it's probably working. The truth is that there are people in the east of Ukraine sympathetic to Russia. How many there are is up for debate, but the Russian reporters are finding them.
There has been a debate raging among the membership of a global, although German-based, non-profit foundation of which I'm an (mostly inactive) member on whether or not to publicly make a statement of support for Ukraine. A Russian member, living in Russia, whom I've worked with in the past and considered sane (although we've never discussed politics) posted a rant about Western intereference in Ukraine, the West-sponsored coup that toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian leader, NATO threatening Russia etc etc. Even he stated that Ukraine's government is not Nazi, but described them as extremists oppressing the Russian peoples of the East. To be clear, I think most/all of what he posted is complete nuts, but I haven't previously thought him to be nuts, so I assume the propaganda there, not just now but over the last decade or so since Russian interference in Ukraine, has been quite effective.
Is the right answer.
My wife has been fielding calls and messages from Russian friends and family, mostly the older generations, this week. Many of them think there’s Nazis, or neo-Nazis, in Ukraine, and that if Russia doesn’t keep the peace then there will be a war and killing of innocent people. They think that, because it’s what’s been on their version of News at Ten, for years now.
The EU is considering offering asylum to Russian soldiers who defect . A payment of 3000 Euros and visa for 3 years could be on offer .
Of course the issue of what happens to their families back home could complicate that for any soldiers thinking of taking that step .
I suggested this many days ago, and think its the right way to go. but think it should be more money, for as long as Putin is in power and for the soldiers family if they can get out.
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
"Oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, may not be sanctioned for months - The Times
Russian oligarchs such as Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich may not be sanctioned for months, after the government was unable to build a case against them, The Times says. The Foreign Office and the National Crime Agency have not been able to prove that there are "reasonable grounds" against the Russian businessmen, and have been unable to link their finances to the Putin government. According to the paper, officials tried to build a case against Abramovich in 2018, but was told that the government could be sued for millions if decisions were made on a flawed basis. "
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
Green policy is to leave NATO in the long term, unless they have changed it. Not a vote winner at the moment.
BTW, I wonder where the Finns stand on this merits of neutrality at this moment. A glance at a modern map and a historical atlas of Europe makes you think a bit.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation PD513 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military-oriented body, which imposes conflict cessation rather than encouraging peace building. As such, it is not a sustainable mechanism for maintaining peace in the world. In the long term, we would take the UK out of NATO. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US."
I feel like conflict cessation and encouraging peace building need to go hand in hand. If you only do one or the other it is not as effective.
I doubt the Greens would take a hit for it, it isn't a part of their policies most will know, many who do will like it, and those that don't will mostly think the other policies make up for that one.
I think you're probably right on Greens, but this is a pretty unusual set of circumstances. It's not often that something as dramatic as this happens. Until last week, I doubt too many voters gave much thought to the threat posed by Russia. Some people may well have re-evaluated their view of geopolitics.
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
Difficult to call.
Green Parties in the UK are on the Liberal Left rather than the Revolutionary Left aiui, which is generally on the other side of the divide to Stop the War types.
And there seem to be no prominent GP signatures on the STWC statement.
One indicator might be to see how their policies wrt NATO are adjusted over the summer. Currently the policy at https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html is to leave NATO.
IMO it's rather cakeist - they want peace and fluffy bunnies without being willing to protect it.
Perhaps very dependent on media coverage and no gaffes?
Usual ill-informed doom porn from @Leon again I see. Just ruins PB from someone who is otherwise an interesting and entertaining poster. He’s segued seamlessly from ramping omicron to pontificating on the Ukraine crisis.
Sad.
Time for another break from PB.
It would be an insult to the comparatively robust constitution of the average snowflake to call you a “snowflake”
Whatever @Anabobazina thinks about King Crimson, to call discussion of psychedelic jazz "doom porn" is probably stretching a point. Or have a missed a post?
My 8yo's first vinyl purchase (based on the cover art) at the weekend turned out to be Yazz Ahmed - excellent stuff for the most part, though occasionally veering towards Pages from Ceefax.
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
Yes, for once the Gov't is very very clear and on top of it's brief regarding no fly zones and the limits of support. They've been told in no uncertain terms that literally millions of lives could be at risk if they misstep by people who are paid to know about these things, and have listened.
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
A throwaway comment on the radio yesterday said Putin's approval had risen 12% because of this. Don't know how trustworthy that is, but it doesn't augur well for any swift overthrow hopes.
Yes, all the reports I’m reading say that Russian state propaganda INSIDE Russia is working very well. They all believe this is a defensive move against nasty Ukrainian fascists. And of course people rally to the flag in any war, even one as rubbish and wicked as this (even Iraq had majority support in the UK at one point)
I am a bit blue today. After a horrible plague, a horrible war? It feels like this is a new pattern in human affairs. After decades of things generally getting better, now they are generally getting worse, and this will continue for some time
I'm keeping abrest of Russian propaganda, and it's probably working. The truth is that there are people in the east of Ukraine sympathetic to Russia. How many there are is up for debate, but the Russian reporters are finding them.
There has been a debate raging among the membership of a global, although German-based, non-profit foundation of which I'm an (mostly inactive) member on whether or not to publicly make a statement of support for Ukraine. A Russian member, living in Russia, whom I've worked with in the past and considered sane (although we've never discussed politics) posted a rant about Western intereference in Ukraine, the West-sponsored coup that toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian leader, NATO threatening Russia etc etc. Even he stated that Ukraine's government is not Nazi, but described them as extremists oppressing the Russian peoples of the East. To be clear, I think most/all of what he posted is complete nuts, but I haven't previously thought him to be nuts, so I assume the propaganda there, not just now but over the last decade or so since Russian interference in Ukraine, has been quite effective.
Is the right answer.
My wife has been fielding calls and messages from Russian friends and family, mostly the older generations, this week. Many of them think there’s Nazis, or neo-Nazis, in Ukraine, and that if Russia doesn’t keep the peace then there will be a war and killing of innocent people. They think that, because it’s what’s been on their version of News at Ten, for years now.
Sadly that will be the case, and I don't really know any good ways to change it. I would suggest that if anybody has any emails addresses or phone numbers of 'Ordinary Russians' the message over videos and so on. but being realistic this will only get to a small number of people and will it be fully believed? Good luck to 'Radio Free Europe' and others who do try to broadcast in to Russia, but again beyond a few people its not clear how many will receive it.
long term the solders who return form war will tell there story's to family and friends, as they did from WW1 and Afghanistan, but that will take a long time. and a lot of people will be dead by then.
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
A throwaway comment on the radio yesterday said Putin's approval had risen 12% because of this. Don't know how trustworthy that is, but it doesn't augur well for any swift overthrow hopes.
Yes, all the reports I’m reading say that Russian state propaganda INSIDE Russia is working very well. They all believe this is a defensive move against nasty Ukrainian fascists. And of course people rally to the flag in any war, even one as rubbish and wicked as this (even Iraq had majority support in the UK at one point)
I am a bit blue today. After a horrible plague, a horrible war? It feels like this is a new pattern in human affairs. After decades of things generally getting better, now they are generally getting worse, and this will continue for some time
I'm keeping abrest of Russian propaganda, and it's probably working. The truth is that there are people in the east of Ukraine sympathetic to Russia. How many there are is up for debate, but the Russian reporters are finding them.
There has been a debate raging among the membership of a global, although German-based, non-profit foundation of which I'm an (mostly inactive) member on whether or not to publicly make a statement of support for Ukraine. A Russian member, living in Russia, whom I've worked with in the past and considered sane (although we've never discussed politics) posted a rant about Western intereference in Ukraine, the West-sponsored coup that toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian leader, NATO threatening Russia etc etc. Even he stated that Ukraine's government is not Nazi, but described them as extremists oppressing the Russian peoples of the East. To be clear, I think most/all of what he posted is complete nuts, but I haven't previously thought him to be nuts, so I assume the propaganda there, not just now but over the last decade or so since Russian interference in Ukraine, has been quite effective.
Is the right answer.
My wife has been fielding calls and messages from Russian friends and family, mostly the older generations, this week. Many of them think there’s Nazis, or neo-Nazis, in Ukraine, and that if Russia doesn’t keep the peace then there will be a war and killing of innocent people. They think that, because it’s what’s been on their version of News at Ten, for years now.
Feed people bullshit long enough and they will believe it regardless of other news and choices that say something very different.
And older people won't be in a position to see (let alone accept) the view from the outside world.
90% sure its' morale boosting/meant to stop Russia fully committing to the advance rather than substance, but fits the 'we won't only be defensive' line trailed last night.
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
Have we banned Russia Today?
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
I don't think RT has been banned, simply the plug has been pulled because (thanks to sanctions) they can't pay the bills to have it shown!
They've ran out of money to have RT be broadcast. Oh dear, what a shame.
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
The other point is that they have steadily become more pro-western as time has gone on. Some people do not seem to have noticed this at all. Another thing which I have only just learned is that it took Stalin 8 years to deal with the Ukrainian nationalists after 1945.
I wonder if the Republic of Ireland's policy of strict neutrality and refusal to countenance membership of NATO could have some bearing on the talk about a border poll and unification.
Yes, Northern Ireland was taken out of the EU. But are people there content to be removed from NATO?
Just a thought. Not seen it mentioned anywhere.
Ireland's policy is not one of strict neutrality. It's never been like Switzerland was. And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral".
It's not impossible to see Ireland join NATO now.
I thought Sinn Fein were surging in the Irish polls? Are they NATO enthusiasts?
- And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral". - LOL
Sinn Fein are up to 35%, which looks high because it's now a split between three main parties, but it's not that impressive historically. FF received 41.6% in 2007, FG 36.1% in 2011.
And I didn't say there was a surge of support for NATO, just that membership wasn't impossible. It's an idea that it isn't a complete waste of time to discuss (unlike, say, Ireland leaving the EU).
What about Ireland rejoining the UK? HYUFD was quite keen on that the other day, or something.
"Are you ready to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine with weapons in hand?" - Yes, google translate....
Однозначно так - Definitely so Скорiше так - Rather so Важко вiдповiсти - It is difficult to answer Скорiше нi - Not soon Однозначно нi - Definitely not
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
IMO it's rather cakeist - they want peace and fluffy bunnies without being willing to protect it.
Yes, the 'wouldn't it be nice if we all got along?' approach.
But come election time and I cannot see 'You don't back NATO' being a hard hitter, even now. Corbyn was vulnerable to that because of decades of associated views, which he was still saying, and up for being PM. No such urgency for a Green.
I have an exceptionally mild cold. It consists of a very infrequent cough, a slight tickle in my throat, the odd sneeze, and a faint sense of fatigue.
Because I have not had a cold for about two years it nonetheless feels like cholera, psychologically.
Get well soon,
have you done a COVID test?
I’ve had Covid at least once, possibly twice, and if this is the third visit it is remarkably feeble. It barely even registers as a cold. Fatigue is the main symptom
My point is more that my present ultra-modest lurgy has made me realise how generally healthy I’ve been for 2 years (Covid aside). Normally I’d get 3 colds a year, maybe, plus stomach upsets?
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
A throwaway comment on the radio yesterday said Putin's approval had risen 12% because of this. Don't know how trustworthy that is, but it doesn't augur well for any swift overthrow hopes.
Yes, all the reports I’m reading say that Russian state propaganda INSIDE Russia is working very well. They all believe this is a defensive move against nasty Ukrainian fascists. And of course people rally to the flag in any war, even one as rubbish and wicked as this (even Iraq had majority support in the UK at one point)
I am a bit blue today. After a horrible plague, a horrible war? It feels like this is a new pattern in human affairs. After decades of things generally getting better, now they are generally getting worse, and this will continue for some time
I'm keeping abrest of Russian propaganda, and it's probably working. The truth is that there are people in the east of Ukraine sympathetic to Russia. How many there are is up for debate, but the Russian reporters are finding them.
There has been a debate raging among the membership of a global, although German-based, non-profit foundation of which I'm an (mostly inactive) member on whether or not to publicly make a statement of support for Ukraine. A Russian member, living in Russia, whom I've worked with in the past and considered sane (although we've never discussed politics) posted a rant about Western intereference in Ukraine, the West-sponsored coup that toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian leader, NATO threatening Russia etc etc. Even he stated that Ukraine's government is not Nazi, but described them as extremists oppressing the Russian peoples of the East. To be clear, I think most/all of what he posted is complete nuts, but I haven't previously thought him to be nuts, so I assume the propaganda there, not just now but over the last decade or so since Russian interference in Ukraine, has been quite effective.
Is the right answer.
My wife has been fielding calls and messages from Russian friends and family, mostly the older generations, this week. Many of them think there’s Nazis, or neo-Nazis, in Ukraine, and that if Russia doesn’t keep the peace then there will be a war and killing of innocent people. They think that, because it’s what’s been on their version of News at Ten, for years now.
This is why we should really value and protect the BBC.
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
Have we banned Russia Today?
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
I don't think RT has been banned, simply the plug has been pulled because (thanks to sanctions) they can't pay the bills to have it shown!
They've ran out of money to have RT be broadcast. Oh dear, what a shame.
Didn't I hear that the uplink for the feed all the European broadcast platforms were using had been turned off?
Not bad, albeit Ukraine's not had a smooth ride of things.
The other point is that they have steadily become more pro-western as time has gone on. Some people do not seem to have noticed this at all.
In fairness I think Putin has noticed, though his understanding of 'why' they have become more pro-western reveals self-reflection is not one of his strengths. And his remedies appear...sub-optimal.
Interesting little thread about the impact of an inadequate / corrupt maintenance regime for military trucks on their performance in mud in the Rasputitsa mud season.
This is a thread that will explain the implied poor Russian Army truck maintenance practices based on this photo of a Pantsir-S1 wheeled gun-missile system's right rear pair of tires below & the operational implications during the Ukrainian mud season.
All true, as anyone knows who has a trailer or caravan which is unused for extended periods - leave them out in the sun and the rubber of the tyres perishes. How funny if something as basic as this is their downfall.
In my part of the world, a 4-year-old tyre is the equivalent of an MoT failure, irrespective of condition. The heat and sunlight kills them, and they fail horribly.
Car tyres have a date of manufacture stamped on them, usually ww/yy in a box stamped on the sidewall. To anyone who doesn’t drive much, go and look how old your tyres are…
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
This might be their DoS protection kicking in. Their DNS still resolves, and points to a DoS site that does mostly sketchy Russian sites. When I hit it from a box in the UK I get a weird error about my SSL connection not completing, but from Japan and a different rental server (I think it's in Singapore) I get the connection completed over SSL, but with a forbidden message. I should only be seeing that if either their server is sending the forbidden message, or the certificate authority (Digicert) has signed a fake certificate. If they were signing a fake certificate I would likely be seeing talk about that in my Twitter feed, so I doubt it's that.
Lavrov is coming out with a whole range of signals at the moment, from the emollient to the aggressive. It's also him giving them out all the time. Very odd.
He’s leaving 57 varieties of marker that can be referred back to after pretty much any outcome. I wouldn’t discount the sort of hysteria induced by being part of a regime that’s hit the buffers, mind.
Where's Putin, though. New nuclear line and absence of the Dear Leader.
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
Meanwhile I was surprised and delighted that almost everyone was wearing masks in my nearest Waitrose this morning. I don't normally go there so I was impressed.
I wonder if the Republic of Ireland's policy of strict neutrality and refusal to countenance membership of NATO could have some bearing on the talk about a border poll and unification.
Yes, Northern Ireland was taken out of the EU. But are people there content to be removed from NATO?
Just a thought. Not seen it mentioned anywhere.
Ireland's policy is not one of strict neutrality. It's never been like Switzerland was. And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral".
It's not impossible to see Ireland join NATO now.
I thought Sinn Fein were surging in the Irish polls? Are they NATO enthusiasts?
- And now they're calling it "neutral, but not neutral". - LOL
Sinn Fein are up to 35%, which looks high because it's now a split between three main parties, but it's not that impressive historically. FF received 41.6% in 2007, FG 36.1% in 2011.
And I didn't say there was a surge of support for NATO, just that membership wasn't impossible. It's an idea that it isn't a complete waste of time to discuss (unlike, say, Ireland leaving the EU).
What about Ireland rejoining the UK? HYUFD was quite keen on that the other day, or something.
Sweden is also “neutral but not neutral”.
The strict Neutrality formulation was thrown out the window in 1992. The policy since then is called ‘alliansfriheten’ - freedom from military alliances. (Which is not strictly true: we have agreements with several parties, including NATO.)
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
The EU have blocked RT. As UK providers take its feed from Luxembourg that means we lose it too.
This is the exact thing we left the EU to stop. Farage should start a campaign to get RT restored to UK screens so that we don't have these faceless European bureaucrats cutting off sovereign British consumers desperate to see The Alex Salmond Show.
On the latter I don't mind popping down the road with my phone to livecast him from his garden gate. But not today its drizzling.
Well, I'm prone to both a more optimistic and realistic outlook, but I very much hope I wasn't wrong in thinking that any rational sense has been seen in Russia yet, going from the various signals. Every day seems to start more gloomily and end more slightly more positively on that front recently, though, so let's hope.
Feels quite gloomy this morning.
Russia is going to slowly flatten Ukraine. Probably divide it in two along the Dnieper. Thousands and thousands will die. The east will be absorbed into Russia itself, like Crimea. The west of Ukraine will be run by a Moscow-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv
But Russia, crippled by sanctions, its economy in freefall, will then have to face an Iraq style insurgency, even as Russia is left with no money and an unhappy military
That’s the best case scenario
Worst: nukes
As a best case scenario there's no way that Russia is going to be able to install and maintain a Moscow-friendly puppet regime. The Ukrainians won't have it, and the Russians aren't powerful enough to enforce it.
Best case scenario: The logistics problems become endemic crippling the Russian military, the Russian military loses its morale and fragments, NATO is able to keep Ukraine supplied with munitions, Russia ends up humiliated in retreat and Putin's regime collapses.
Yes; hangovers aren't great for Leon's clarity of thought (such as it is to begin with).
There are multiple bad scenarios, for sure. But there is also a chance that internal pressure within Russia leads either to a face-saving withdrawal or regime change. The chances of Ukraine joining the EU have increased significantly, the chances of China invading Taiwan have reduced considerably, and the democratic west may be on the way to renewing its spirit and sense of purpose. Probably, the odds of a Trump return have lengthened too. It's far from being all bad news, taking the bigger picture.
I don't really understand what 'regime change' means in this context. Putin has made constitutional changes in Russia to ensure that he can stay in power forever etc., so those would be reversed (along with his own departure), but other than that, what regime change are we talking about? Dissolving the Russian parliament? Dispanding its army and security services? Installing a permanent pro-Western Government whether or not that's what the Russian electorate actually wants? What?
Dictators that f**k their countries up big time tend to be exited from office, regardless of the constitutional small print.
That tells me nothing about what you mean by regime change.
Moving from totalitarian to non-totalitarian would be one example.
Russia is quite likely to undergo something of a shock to its collective consciousness if sanctions fully take hold. Pretending that this isn't them against half the world, with powerful former allies standing on the sidelines, is going to be quite difficult. And there's probably quite a significant part of the population which gets its news form the west by various means and doesn't believe state propaganda.
Either it gets a great deal more repressive, or something cracks.
Some people have said they're going to have to get used to being like North Korea, but in a way this is *worse* for Russia than North Korea.
North Korea is used to being isolated so they're set up for it, plus their population doesn't know any better.
Russians are not used to being so isolated. Their supply chain isn't set up for it in the way North Korea's is. Plus the population, while subject to propaganda, does know better.
The average middle-class Moscovite is used to driving a Mercedes, using an iPhone and wearing western labels. That’s all about to go away.
On the subject of the tories in the polls, I don't subscribe to the optimistic view that they are going to do well out of this.
The further Ukraine slides into rubble and the more Putin pulverises them and is allowed by the rest of the west to get away with it, the worse this looks for Johnson.
We talk the talk but actually we're doing bugger all. We haven't even impounded the oligarch money which continues to sluice its way into the tory part coffers. They will take an absolutely hammering over this come the GE.
I have an exceptionally mild cold. It consists of a very infrequent cough, a slight tickle in my throat, the odd sneeze, and a faint sense of fatigue.
Because I have not had a cold for about two years it nonetheless feels like cholera, psychologically.
Long term effects of covid may continue to be severe, including organ damage, even with apparently mild symptoms.
Get well soon.
Not that likely. Most people with severe long covid tend to be those who were hospitalised. I know that there are a lot of people who have long covid symptoms, but its not clear what the cause is for many of them. For most, in time there will be full recovery. Those who have damaged organs, cardiovascular damage etc, less so.
Yes that is true it does give succour to those who want or need it. I am just concerned about the old echo chamber element of twitter. We can't condemn it when we disagree with its nature on the one hand, and cite it as a key element in the fight for truth on the other.
Yes, Twitter's basically a neutral tool for projecting unfiltered chatter from all kinds of people, and no more reliable that what a stranger tells you in a pub. The general ethos of mutually supportive networks encourages rah-rah cheerleading - the good guys are winning, the other side are idiots. On a similar note it's curious that we've shut down access to RussiaToday, which I suspect had a viewership close to zero before this. From today, we're not allowed to look at it, which is something I don't think we've ever done before - e.g. I believe it's possible to look at militant Islamist websites, and during WW2 AFAIK we never bothered to try to jam Lord Haw-Haw.
I've no brief for the war, which is basically neo-Czarist imperialism, but understanding what everyone is saying is important, and if we stop people doing that, it's harder to complain about Russian censorship of Western comment. It also makes it harder to have an unconstrained discussion as one starts to think that there's something suspect about even knowing what the other side are saying.
I agree we shouldn’t ban Russia Today. But was it a UK political decision? I thought it was done of necessity for some complex EU-related reason
Have we banned Russia Today?
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
I have an exceptionally mild cold. It consists of a very infrequent cough, a slight tickle in my throat, the odd sneeze, and a faint sense of fatigue.
Because I have not had a cold for about two years it nonetheless feels like cholera, psychologically.
Long term effects of covid may continue to be severe, including organ damage, even with apparently mild symptoms.
Get well soon.
Not that likely. Most people with severe long covid tend to be those who were hospitalised. I know that there are a lot of people who have long covid symptoms, but its not clear what the cause is for many of them. For most, in time there will be full recovery. Those who have damaged organs, cardiovascular damage etc, less so.
You have I believe no medical expertise or research to back that up.
While on the topic of tyre geeks, this is also an interesting site for the tank and engineering enthusiasts amongst us (as is the chap's twitter feed): for instance on the cage armour so common nowadays:
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
It's seemingly general for UK viewers. I've been looking at their website rt.com now and then for the last couple of weeks, and from today it's seemingly blocked ("can't be reached"). Don't know about the TV stuff.
I wonder if the Greens might take a hit over Ukraine? That change could be just noise, but you never know.
Green policy is to leave NATO in the long term, unless they have changed it. Not a vote winner at the moment.
BTW, I wonder where the Finns stand on this merits of neutrality at this moment. A glance at a modern map and a historical atlas of Europe makes you think a bit.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation PD513 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military-oriented body, which imposes conflict cessation rather than encouraging peace building. As such, it is not a sustainable mechanism for maintaining peace in the world. In the long term, we would take the UK out of NATO. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US."
I feel like conflict cessation and encouraging peace building need to go hand in hand. If you only do one or the other it is not as effective.
I doubt the Greens would take a hit for it, it isn't a part of their policies most will know, many who do will like it, and those that don't will mostly think the other policies make up for that one.
I've voted green at times, certainly in European elections. On the green issues rather than the social policies (green MEPs in Euro Parl sould actually make a bit of a difference, potentially) and I would never have been in danger of voting for the current E&W Green Party in an election that mattered (think I might actually have voted Green once in a GE, but only in a safe seat) but the NATO policy would put me off. Before too, but certainly if maintained now.
Interesting little thread about the impact of an inadequate / corrupt maintenance regime for military trucks on their performance in mud in the Rasputitsa mud season.
This is a thread that will explain the implied poor Russian Army truck maintenance practices based on this photo of a Pantsir-S1 wheeled gun-missile system's right rear pair of tires below & the operational implications during the Ukrainian mud season.
All true, as anyone knows who has a trailer or caravan which is unused for extended periods - leave them out in the sun and the rubber of the tyres perishes. How funny if something as basic as this is their downfall.
In my part of the world, a 4-year-old tyre is the equivalent of an MoT failure, irrespective of condition. The heat and sunlight kills them.
Car tyres have a date of manufacture stamped on them, usually ww/yy in a box stamped on the sidewall. To anyone who doesn’t drive much, go and look how old your tyres are…
Last time I had new tyres a couple of years ago there was a bloke in the shop pleading for them to fix a puncture in a trailer tyre, despite them pointing out it was dated 1979. And last year I bought a wooden sailing dinghy with plastic buoyancy bags in it dated 1957
Have only had a scan through the last hour, but there does seem to be this odd thing where HY thinks our Trident missiles would restrain the russian bear. "we would threaten to attack Moscow" or some guff.
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
That is the whole reason Trident is on submarines not on land.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
Thats not what you said though. You said that Trident would defend London. It won't.
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending London as you claim.
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.
Comments
Russia considering imposing martial law in Russia. Huge if true as an indicator they things are not going swimmingly
The whole "Misogynist Meets a Strong Woman" thing....
The harshness of Versailles clearly didn't help, and the whole war guilt clause can be considered contentious in an era where ALL combatants entered the war with aims in mind. From a French perspective, millions of young Frenchmen were dead, millions more were wounded, some permanently. Large swathes of France had been occupied, and towns and villages destroyed. Villages where the fighting was heavy, such as the Somme, and Ypres were no more than piles of brick dust in the mud. There was a huge desire for compensation, but also to ensure that Germany could not do this again. Sadly, in striving to ensure this, the Germans were back just 20 years later, and the men who had served in the trenches now saw their sons fighting again, or conscripted as forced labour in the Reich.
Perhaps we are more mature now - SA's truth and reconciliation and NI suggest maybe. But the despicable invasion of Ukraine by Putin suggests we have a long way to go.
Of course, most (though not all) of them are happy to oppress their own territory rather than launch a war of conquest which requires a good army.
"Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the centrist Democrat who abruptly ended talks over the sprawling spending plan in December, outlined the broad strokes of a package he could support, after weeks of declining to discuss details."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/biden-pivot-moderate-agenda.html
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
If the BBC have totally ignored the Paulette Hamilton story it’s very serious. Saying it’s on the eve of a by-election is no excuse. When I was Newsnight reporter I did story of Labour fiddling election expenses in Wirral South by-election. And we transmitted night before polling
Not a usual suspect when it comes to criticising the BBC.
Charles Lister
@Charles_Lister
·
3m
Here’s #Putin’s new pretext for escalation in #Ukraine — “bio-labs.”
This from a regime that uses chemical weapons on its opponents & video game footage to cover up its own war crimes.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1499344820472532996
@BritainElects
·
49m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 42% (+2)
CON: 34% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
GRN: 3% (-2)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 25 - 27 Feb
Chgs. w/ 20 Feb
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1499320311849828352
I knocked up a fully autonomous RC UAV about 10 years ago using a standard microcontroller and some open source control software. It still flies but is somewhat outdated compared with modern kit.
It is built to carry a compact camera (told you it was outdated) set to auto-shoot although it can be programmed to fly to a specific point and take individual pictures.
I could probably knock up one of those in a week in the garage using just hobby parts, although it does appear to be a nicely constructed wing.
Cost probably ~ £1000, plus the high explosive.
Eeek.
"Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin on Rossiya 24:
"If the operation hadn't started, on literally the next day Nato would have launched an operation, but using Ukraine's Neonazis and Banderites. We got in their first, which means we saved hundreds of thousands of lives""
- Feels politically isolated
- Thought of nuclear (weapons) are constantly spinning in their heads
- See Ukraine as a military threat - for not losing immediately.
They had to tread the very fine line between making sure Ukraine wins, but not getting involved directly to avoid prodding the bear into taking the nuclear option. I think when Poland and others suggested handing fighter planes to the Ukranian Air Force, that probably crossed the line and NATO put a stop to it.
So far, it couldn’t have gone better for the allies. The Russian advance has been much slower than expected, compounded by logistics issues and a lack of air superiority, and the Ukranian defence has been exemplary, with good equipment and well-trained men and women.
Even if all they have managed is to slow the inevitable, the West is not done with Russia, the sanctions are there as long as Futin remains in charge.
(Lol, my spellchecker now corrects Putin to Futin).
A far more effective policy than seeking harsh punishment of Russia would be to rebuild postwar Ukraine better than before.
The Ukrainians have positioned themselves, very successfully, as the moderate & sensible people in this.
Engaging in peace talks while the Russian use cluster munitions against apartment blocks hurts the Russians internationally, not Ukraine.
It prevents the Jeremy Corbyn type stuff gathering any traction - "You can't say they are not trying for peace...."
Because I have not had a cold for about two years it nonetheless feels like cholera, psychologically.
It's lost its platform on Sky, decided by Sky - surely?
Ofcom only launched an investigation yesterday.
'The EU has banned Russia Today' is worrying centralism, unless there has been a debate amongst the democratic structures first.
BTW, I wonder where the Finns stand on this merits of neutrality at this moment. A glance at a modern map and a historical atlas of Europe makes you think a bit.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
PD513 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military-oriented body, which imposes conflict cessation rather than encouraging peace building. As such, it is not a sustainable mechanism for maintaining peace in the world. In the long term, we would take the UK out of NATO. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US."
Rating Group has a 1 day n=2000 poll from 1 Mar. Zelensky hits 93% support, 98% support the army. Support for Ukraine’s EU accession hits a record 86% (!!) percent, support for joining NATO at 76%. 88% believe #Ukraine will repel Russia. #SlavaUkraina
https://twitter.com/CEQuirk/status/1499131616647598084?cxt=HHwWiMCyneeQ_s0pAAAA
The gob smacking stuff to me has been the appearance, on outlets like RT, of that stuff about how "blood and soil nationalism is understandable vs 'values'" - that is indeed straight Hitler thinking. When you tie that in with the Wagner group stuff....
have you done a COVID test?
In particular Morning Heroes by Arthur Bliss. This was written around 1930 looking back at the first world war dedicated "To the Memory of my brother Francis Kennard Bliss and all other Comrades killed in battle"
The text comes from a variety of sources, including Drum Taps by Walt Whitman. The second movement is adapted from "First O Songs for a Prelude".
It starts:
First O songs for a prelude,
Lightly strike on the stretch'd tympanum pride and joy in my city,
How she led the rest to arms, how she gave the cue,
How at once with lithe limbs unwaiting a moment she sprang,
(O superb! O Manhattan, my own, my peerless!
O strongest you in the hour of danger, in crisis! O truer than steel!)
How you sprang—how you threw off the costumes of peace with indifferent hand,
How your soft opera-music changed, and the drum and fife were heard in their stead,
How you led to the war, (that shall serve for our prelude, songs of soldiers,)
How Manhattan drum-taps led.
Forty years had I in my city seen soldiers parading,
Forty years as a pageant, till unawares the lady of this teeming and turbulent city,
Sleepless amid her ships, her houses, her incalculable wealth,
With her million children around her, suddenly,
At dead of night, at news from the south,
Incens'd struck with clinch'd hand the pavement.
A shock electric, the night sustain'd it,
Till with ominous hum our hive at daybreak pour'd out its myriads.
From the houses then and the workshops, and through all the doorways,
Leapt they tumultuous, and lo! Manhattan arming.
To the drum-taps prompt,
The young men falling in and arming,
The mechanics arming, (the trowel, the jack-plane, the blacksmith's hammer, tost aside with precipitation,)
The lawyer leaving his office and arming, the judge leaving the court,
The driver deserting his wagon in the street, jumping down, throwing the reins abruptly down on the horses' backs,
The salesman leaving the store, the boss, book-keeper, porter, all leaving;
Squads gather everywhere by common consent and arm,
The new recruits, even boys, the old men show them how to wear their accoutrements, they buckle the straps carefully,
Outdoors arming, indoors arming, the flash of the musket-barrels,
The white tents cluster in camps, the arm'd sentries around, the sunrise cannon and again at sunset,
Arm'd regiments arrive every day, pass through the city, and embark from the wharves,
(How good they look as they tramp down to the river, sweaty, with their guns on their shoulders!
How I love them! how I could hug them, with their brown faces and their clothes and knapsacks cover'd with dust!)
The blood of the city up-arm'd! arm'd! the cry everywhere,
The flags flung out from the steeples of churches and from all the public buildings and stores,
The tearful parting, the mother kisses her son, the son kisses his mother,
(Loth is the mother to part, yet not a word does she speak to detain him,)
...
As for neo-Czarist imperialism that is interesting. As is this article I saw the other day; no idea what kind of legitimacy either author or journal has.
https://theintercept.com/2022/03/01/ukraine-russia-leftists-tankie/
So lets understand how the hour or so of nuclear war would last. We threaten to nuke Moscow. They detect that we are at maximum readiness. So they choose to preempt - a nuclear attack on British military and 3C assets. That means they take out airbases, dockyards and command centres.
If you look at a map of this country and overlay these counterforce targets, you will see that we lose the country in a single attack. Like permanently lose it. Hard for London to order a counterattack when its had 8 SS-27 warheads flatten it and our cold war bunkers no longer exist.
So no, Trident will not defend London. If we fire them we are either in the process of being destroyed, or we have already been destroyed. I'd fare better up here with plenty of cows and potatoes and trees to cook them on, some of you less well.
Either way, its clear that the Big Dog has been leant on hard in his defence briefings. Instead of his usual detail-free waffle and bluster he is very clear when challenged over things like no-fly zones which means WWII which quickly could end us.
I doubt the Greens would take a hit for it, it isn't a part of their policies most will know, many who do will like it, and those that don't will mostly think the other policies make up for that one.
And I didn't say there was a surge of support for NATO, just that membership wasn't impossible. It's an idea that it isn't a complete waste of time to discuss (unlike, say, Ireland leaving the EU).
My wife has been fielding calls and messages from Russian friends and family, mostly the older generations, this week. Many of them think there’s Nazis, or neo-Nazis, in Ukraine, and that if Russia doesn’t keep the peace then there will be a war and killing of innocent people. They think that, because it’s what’s been on their version of News at Ten, for years now.
* Has anyone checked what the EU has actually done? *cough* “jet fighters” *cough*…..
I'm still paying about 2.8p/kwh retail until my fix ends in a couple of weeks!
If this persists, the resulting economic armmageddon is going to be something to behold.
https://ratinggroup.ua/files/ratinggroup/reg_files/rg_ua_1200_032022_war_press.pdf
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-verstappen-signs-bumper-new-deal-with-red-bull-until-end-of-2028.7Csixu7ehVLNr5mDgFQ1Q7.html
Somehow, I think fans might survive losing Sochi.
Green Parties in the UK are on the Liberal Left rather than the Revolutionary Left aiui, which is generally on the other side of the divide to Stop the War types.
And there seem to be no prominent GP signatures on the STWC statement.
One indicator might be to see how their policies wrt NATO are adjusted over the summer. Currently the policy at https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html is to leave NATO.
IMO it's rather cakeist - they want peace and fluffy bunnies without being willing to protect it.
Perhaps very dependent on media coverage and no gaffes?
My 8yo's first vinyl purchase (based on the cover art) at the weekend turned out to be Yazz Ahmed - excellent stuff for the most part, though occasionally veering towards Pages from Ceefax.
A Trident nuclear missile would be launched on Moscow from a submarine if the UK was attacked depending on what the PM of the time had written in their letter of last resort.
The PM and Cabinet have a nuclear bunker ready for them anyway if needed. I have already made clear I oppose a no fly zone and troops in Ukraine and only support sanctions.
This scenario is entirely based on most of Europe falling to Russian invasion and the UK being next in line
long term the solders who return form war will tell there story's to family and friends, as they did from WW1 and Afghanistan, but that will take a long time. and a lot of people will be dead by then.
And older people won't be in a position to see (let alone accept) the view from the outside world.
This year: жодного
Hmmm… from past experience, that can only mean one thing! 😄
"General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine:
from defense mode we are now moving to counterattack mode.
In fact, so many settlements have already been liberated that we can say that we are already on the counterattack"
90% sure its' morale boosting/meant to stop Russia fully committing to the advance rather than substance, but fits the 'we won't only be defensive' line trailed last night.
They've ran out of money to have RT be broadcast. Oh dear, what a shame.
"Are you ready to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine with weapons in hand?" - Yes, google translate....
Однозначно так - Definitely so
Скорiше так - Rather so
Важко вiдповiсти - It is difficult to answer
Скорiше нi - Not soon
Однозначно нi - Definitely not
The regionality map used is
But come election time and I cannot see 'You don't back NATO' being a hard hitter, even now. Corbyn was vulnerable to that because of decades of associated views, which he was still saying, and up for being PM. No such urgency for a Green.
My point is more that my present ultra-modest lurgy has made me realise how generally healthy I’ve been for 2 years (Covid aside). Normally I’d get 3 colds a year, maybe, plus stomach upsets?
All this obsessive hygiene has had an effect
Car tyres have a date of manufacture stamped on them, usually ww/yy in a box stamped on the sidewall. To anyone who doesn’t drive much, go and look how old your tyres are…
Get well soon.
The strict Neutrality formulation was thrown out the window in 1992. The policy since then is called ‘alliansfriheten’ - freedom from military alliances. (Which is not strictly true: we have agreements with several parties, including NATO.)
This is the exact thing we left the EU to stop. Farage should start a campaign to get RT restored to UK screens so that we don't have these faceless European bureaucrats cutting off sovereign British consumers desperate to see The Alex Salmond Show.
On the latter I don't mind popping down the road with my phone to livecast him from his garden gate. But not today its drizzling.
LAB: 42% (+2)
CON: 34% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
GRN: 3% (-2)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 25 - 27 Feb
Chgs. w/ 20 Feb
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1499333274015092738
Who cares about polls?
The further Ukraine slides into rubble and the more Putin pulverises them and is allowed by the rest of the west to get away with it, the worse this looks for Johnson.
We talk the talk but actually we're doing bugger all. We haven't even impounded the oligarch money which continues to sluice its way into the tory part coffers. They will take an absolutely hammering over this come the GE.
I know that there are a lot of people who have long covid symptoms, but its not clear what the cause is for many of them. For most, in time there will be full recovery. Those who have damaged organs, cardiovascular damage etc, less so.
And you can still watch it online:
http://www.freeintertv.com/view/
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/
If as you said we launch it at Moscow to stop the reds invading the UK they would simply launch a full counter strike and destroy the whole country.
If as you now say we launch at what used to be Moscow because the letter says launch they're opening the letter because London has been destroyed along with the rest of the UK. And they have missiles to fire because they were not used in the nuclear exchange which destroyed western civilisation because SLBMs are held back as a second strike platform.
So, we launch and bring about our own destruction. Or we launch having been destroyed.
Either way, Trident is NOT defending London as you claim.
I don't think this is going to play well for the tories. Putin is pulverising Ukraine and we're doing nothing to stop it. We haven't even touched dirty Russian money.
It's a pathetic response.
We should stand up to the bullies and drive them out of Ukraine even if that risks a nuclear war.