Punters give LAB a 94% chance of winning Erdington by-election – politicalbetting.com

System

Punters give LAB a 94% chance of winning Erdington by-election – politicalbetting.com

We have given hardly any coverage to today’s Westminster by-election in Erdington simply because this appears to be an almost certain LAB hold.

Read the full story here

Taz

I expect a pretty large swing to labour here.

Taz

Oh, and first it seems !!!!

kle4

Theuniondivvie said:

show previous quotes

Scott_xP said:

Tory Party chairman - and chief fundraiser - Ben Elliot, has deleted a page on his company's website which boasted of "nearly 15 years' experience providing luxury lifestyle management services to Russia's elite and corporate members."🤔 ~AA

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-chair-ben-elliot-russia-elite-b2027521.html

Isn’t Benny nephew of mother-of-the-nation in training Camilla? I daresay the Mail won't have that on their front page.

Is that really the best headline news they could come up with?

BigRich

FPT:

williamglenn said:

Estonian owned cargo ship Helt sinks off Ukrainian coast near Odessa after explosion – Reuters, citing ship manager

Helt cargo ship may have hit mine - ship manager.

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1499368823136432131

If this ship was sunk by the Russians, does this count as an acct of war by Russia against a NATO Nation?

Gary_Burton

I expect a boring/unspectacular Labour hold, something like Lab 55 (+5), Con 30 (-10). I can see Nellist+Greens getting 10% combined which could prevent Labour getting up to 60%. On balance I still think both will lose deposits, although I can see just about see Nellist holding his deposit now.

NickPalmer

I offered to go up for a few days to help - they didn't bother to take it up, and the usual appeals to help the polling day operation haven't been coming in. So either they're insanely complacent or they're comfortable.

biggles

BigRich said:

FPT:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

Estonian owned cargo ship Helt sinks off Ukrainian coast near Odessa after explosion – Reuters, citing ship manager

Helt cargo ship may have hit mine - ship manager.

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1499368823136432131

If this ship was sunk by the Russians, does this count as an acct of war by Russia against a NATO Nation?

Only if we wanted it to.

CarlottaVance

Labour hold.

In other views:

We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1499272892172935168

Malmesbury

Carnyx said:

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Heathener said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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/BritainElects/status/1499333274015092738

Who cares about polls?

As I was saying.

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.

That would be nice. The trouble is that at a moral level the existence of mutually assured destruction not only changes the textbooks for generals about how to fight, it changes entirely the landscape of what constitutes a just war. To wage a just war (both secular and religious traditions are onto this) one of the features has to be proportion, risk, the chance of winning, of doing more good than harm and so on.

So in 1939 we went into war with Germany, after Poland, having weighed up the prospects. It may well have been a balanced decision, with arguments on both sides.

Now imagine that in 1939 Germany held the power to destroy in 24 hours the entire of western Europe and North America and we had no way of stopping it.

What would we have decided?

That's what our leaders face now. God help them.

Hitler was so close to getting nukes first. It is a truly terrifying concept and counter-factual, and of course the basis for The Man in the High Castle. A world where Hitler wins and rules the planet

The difference between that idea, and what we face now, is that both sides - many sides - have nukes. A Mexican stand off

He was no-where near. If the attempted reactor in Bavaria had a bit more heavy water, it would have run away and achieved the world's first melt down. The German scientists on the project were out of their depth

That's interesting - any decent site with more info, please?

Pictures of the re-creation (there's a museum there now)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkeller-Museum

As to the likely result of running it - see "Hitler's Nuclear Weapons" by Geoffrey Brooks. There was no control system. If it had gone critical, it would have run away in seconds, killing the operators with radiation and escalating to... fun...

biggles

Gary_Burton said:

I expect a boring/unspectacular Labour hold, something like Lab 55 (+5), Con 30 (-10). I can see Nellist+Greens getting 10% combined which could prevent Labour getting up to 60%. On balance I still think both will lose deposits, although I can see just about see Nellist holding his deposit now.

Numbers can go a bit weird on lowish turnout though, when everyone knows the winner. Labour could blow the doors off. Percentage wise.

RochdalePioneers

FPT

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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 if London as you claim.

It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.

That would be the risk the Russians would take.

Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too

Unsure if dense or not listening.

Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war:
Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces
Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow
Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.

So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.

Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.

How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.

Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.

Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.

Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.

The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.

Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?

williamglenn

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Chameleon

https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/1499362337165303810

Interesting tweet on a video from a substantial number of non-captured Russian soldiers complaining:

Forced to sign papers to be retroactively dismissed from the army from the day before they entered Ukraine
4 days without food and supplies (i.e. they had what they carried with them, nothing since).
No-one picking up dead bodies.
Spent the last 3 days waiting for transport to be taken back to Russia.
Told initially that it was an exercise.
Sleeping on the ground without tents or water, sodden feet.

Malmesbury

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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 if London as you claim.

It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.

That would be the risk the Russians would take.

Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too

Unsure if dense or not listening.

Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war:
Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces
Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow
Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.

So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.

Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.

How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.

Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.

Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.

Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.

The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.

Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?

I doubt anyone would need to have had a word with Biden - the basics of this have been in briefings for politicians since before I was born. And Biden has been around long enough for a few of those....

Theuniondivvie

Fckn hell.

Covid denier ✔
Anti masker ✔
Vaccine sceptic ✔
Massive narcissistic rsole ✔
Putinist ✔

biggles

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Add in the Oneweb business, where you wouldn’t now trust them with your kit, and they do appear to have killed their aerospace industry.

biggles

Theuniondivvie said:

Fckn hell.

Covid denier ✔
Anti masker ✔
Vaccine sceptic ✔
Massive narcissistic rsole ✔
Putinist ✔

Don’t drink the tea!!!!!

Malmesbury

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/1499362337165303810

Interesting tweet on a video from a substantial number of non-captured Russian soldiers complaining:

Forced to sign papers to be retroactively dismissed from the army from the day before they entered Ukraine
4 days without food and supplies (i.e. they had what they carried with them, nothing since).
No-one picking up dead bodies.
Spent the last 3 days waiting for transport to be taken back to Russia.
Told initially that it was an exercise.
Sleeping on the ground without tents or water, sodden feet.

"sodden feet"

My grandfather, from his time in WWI, remembered good officers, in his diaries, on the basis (of among other things) their efforts to get dry socks and fix boots for the men.

RochdalePioneers

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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 if London as you claim.

It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.

That would be the risk the Russians would take.

Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too

Unsure if dense or not listening.

Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war:
Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces
Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow
Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.

So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.

Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.

How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.

Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.

Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.

Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.

The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.

Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?

I doubt anyone would need to have had a word with Biden - the basics of this have been in briefings for politicians since before I was born. And Biden has been around long enough for a few of those....

Sure. But no US President is going to order a first strike off their own bat. Its the military and intelligence people saying "we believe Putin is about to attack, here is the evidence" that would prompt it.

BigRich

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

Nigel_Foremain

Why Scottish Nationalists are such useful idiots to Putin:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/russia-ukraine-crisis-why-vladimir-putin-is-interested-in-scotland-and-scottish-nationalists-e2-80-93-dr-alison-smith/ar-AAUvurh?ocid=uxbndlbing

eek

BigRich said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

Nope it's 247 or so see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_fleet

CarlottaVance

U.S. officials are stepping up a campaign to defeat a Russian candidate for a UN agency that could determine how much control governments have over the internet.

The big picture: Russia's designs on the little-known agency raise the stakes for what the Russian government's vision of the internet could mean for the rest of the world, especially following its invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.axios.com/us-russia-internet-international-telecommunication-union-b1704192-495d-4fdc-95e2-cb923906c501.html

Malmesbury

BigRich said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

I believe they are talking about all the leased planes in Russia, not just Aeroflot. Many airlines lease they aircraft. IIRC this means that, technically, an absurd proportion of the worlds airliners are actually *owned* in Ireland...

EDIT: Found it

https://simpleflying.com/biggest-aircraft-lessors/

https://simpleflying.com/irish-planes-russia/

BigRich

CarlottaVance said:

Labour hold.

In other views:

We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1499272892172935168

Very sadly I fee that is accurate.

williamglenn

BigRich said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

It wouldn’t just be Aeroflot. They’re suggesting it would be done by the government and would impact up to 515 planes.

BigRich

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/1499362337165303810

Interesting tweet on a video from a substantial number of non-captured Russian soldiers complaining:

Forced to sign papers to be retroactively dismissed from the army from the day before they entered Ukraine
4 days without food and supplies (i.e. they had what they carried with them, nothing since).
No-one picking up dead bodies.
Spent the last 3 days waiting for transport to be taken back to Russia.
Told initially that it was an exercise.
Sleeping on the ground without tents or water, sodden feet.

Well at least some of the Russian Solders who are getting food, are getting ration packs that are 7 years out of date:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpHvumE8ILg

Malmesbury

biggles said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Add in the Oneweb business, where you wouldn’t now trust them with your kit, and they do appear to have killed their aerospace industry.

And, of the various Russian government assets frozen in the West, much will be claimed by various aggrieved parties - the planes in question are worth billions, for example.

Polruan

posted on wrong thread...

Farooq said:

show previous quotes

darkage said:

Farooq said:

IshmaelZ said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Heathener said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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/BritainElects/status/1499333274015092738

Who cares about polls?

As I was saying.

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.

Maybe explain how the UK can drive Russia out of Ukraine on its own

You do know the entire membership of NATO is against no fly zones

Boris and Starmer are cooperating on Russian money but these London lawyers threatening the UK with litigation on behalf of their Russian clients need to be named and shamed and sanctioned

Uh, we don't suspend rule of law just because we don't like those being subject to it. They have every right to try to challenge and defend themselves against legal sanctions.

Not if we pass primary legislation they can't.

Even then they can still challenge it. They might not get the law struck down, but a court could still declare it incompatible with other legislation.

Article 1 of the ECHR? Maybe some lawyers will have an opinion on this.


In general, I don't think lawyers will like being told who they can defend.

I was thinking of the Human Rights Act. But yeah, I still believe that primary legislation can be challenged in court even if the prospects of striking it down are close to nil.

There are a few different things in play here - in particular, it's not necessarily about challenging a law in its entirety in order to strike it down so much as arguing that a specific provision or impact hasn't been properly considered, or is constrained by/incompatible with something else... and so on, in order to defend an individual case (I do tax, not public law so this is not what you'd call an expert view). If you have a look at the kind of challenges the Good Law Project have taken to judicial review in the last couple of years you get the idea.

I think the better way of looking at it is this: we are constrained by relatively few obligations following Brexit (Parliament can now generally amend retained EU law, albeit with a risk of impact on the TCA and some other modes of engagement with the EU) and as far as I know we are not operating within any international constraints which do not also apply to EU member states. So it is hard to see a genuine reason that the UK as a sovereign nation can't legislate effectively to do things that EU nations are now doing. Reasons might include "it's difficult" or "we are worried about the longer-term precedent" or "we don't really want to".

YBarddCwsc

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

Beibheirli_C

williamglenn said:

show previous quotes

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

It wouldn’t just be Aeroflot. They’re suggesting it would be done by the government and would impact up to 515 planes.

And were will they get parts and spares? Everyone forgets the support infrastructure. High-tech stuff requires high-tech support infrastructure.

Those aircraft will become unflyable very quickly and then where will the Russians get replacements from?

BigRich

williamglenn said:

show previous quotes

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

It wouldn’t just be Aeroflot. They’re suggesting it would be done by the government and would impact up to 515 planes.

Some of those planes may be quite small, but does anybody what to estimate how much money we are talking about here?

Polruan

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

I believe they are talking about all the leased planes in Russia, not just Aeroflot. Many airlines lease they aircraft. IIRC this means that, technically, an absurd proportion of the worlds airliners are actually *owned* in Ireland...

EDIT: Found it

https://simpleflying.com/biggest-aircraft-lessors/

https://simpleflying.com/irish-planes-russia/

Perhaps a stupid question, but given the closure of Russian airspace to most western-registered aircraft and vice versa, how would the planes actually get returned anyway? A very long taxi?

BartholomewRoberts

malcolmg said:

show previous quotes

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

kle4

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Suggests the regime at least is wanting to dig in for the long haul, by acting so irrevocably?

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

show previous quotes

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

Oh right, just get Typhoid Mary in as cook. Just like any other summer diarrhoea.

Beibheirli_C

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

biggles said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Add in the Oneweb business, where you wouldn’t now trust them with your kit, and they do appear to have killed their aerospace industry.

And, of the various Russian government assets frozen in the West, much will be claimed by various aggrieved parties - the planes in question are worth billions, for example.

If they are not maintained, they will be scrap in 6 months.

Malmesbury

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

"deNazify" - hmmm. So the guys who are into "blood and soil nationalism" and have actual Nazi tattoos want what, exactly?

"demilitarise" - this is simpler. They want Ukraine to get rid of all the weapons with which they have been making Russia look bad.

As to Luhansk/Donetsk - any thoughts on this poll - https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraina_v_usloviyah_voyny_1_marta_2022.html

FrancisUrquhart

ITV has bought out BBC’s share of BritBox U.K. ahead of the launch of its new streaming service ITVX, Variety has confirmed.

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/itv-bbc-britbox-1235195054/

tlg86

Thank God for Brexit...

https://twitter.com/UtdDistrict/status/1499381384137396236

UtdDistrict 🇺🇦@UtdDistrict🗞 Two pages of the document that has been sent to the European Union detailing the new European Super League format, why they believe it is a positive change for football, and that the ESL is not a 'breakaway' league.

fox327

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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 if London as you claim.

It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.

That would be the risk the Russians would take.

Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too

Unsure if dense or not listening.

Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war:
Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces
Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow
Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.

So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.

Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.

How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.

Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.

Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.

Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.

The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.

Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?

This makes me wonder if the UK could be safer without nuclear weapons, but with larger conventional forces. They make us a bigger target.

BartholomewRoberts

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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 if London as you claim.

It is. If the Russians destroy London, we destroy Moscow by launching a Trident nuclear missile from a submarine.

That would be the risk the Russians would take.

Yes London may already have been destroyed when Trident was launched but so what? Moscow would still be destroyed in the end too

Unsure if dense or not listening.

Nuclear strategists consider three stages of nuclear war:
Theatre wide - use of air-dropped nuclear weapons on a specific target in theatre. As an example NATO drops B61 bombs onto that Russian military column. Russia responds in kind against NATO forces
Counterforce - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy weapons and 3C capabilities. This would EXCLUDE Trident but would destroy 3C targets such as London and Moscow
Countervalue - strategic use of nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy utterly.

So we would see a counterforce exchange where US missiles and bombers burst over Russian targets and theirs over NATO targets. Both capitals and millions of people are dead. We then get talking from whomever is left to try and stop the war there, with submarine systems held in reserve to threaten total destruction. Not that we would care as the counterforce strike would do so much damage to the UK that we would cease to function as a nation.

Only afterwards - the letter of last resort or an explicit order - does Trident fire. And not at smoking ruins like Moscow. We're off slaughtering the 600k civilians in Irkutsk.

How is Trident defending London as you keep saying? That is *explicitly* not its role.

Without wishing to get into the comedy of all of the above - most people who have looked at the issue of nuclear war think (well, the rational ones) that escalation to "strategic" level would be inevitable. So when you drop a tactical nuke on a military column, you are The End Of The World.

Which is why I would rather we don't do that, please.

Yep. Once someone bursts a nuke it can get really bad really quickly. And with Russia already flexing its strategic forces' muscles and using the nuke work casually you can see the scenario where the US Joint Chiefs are having to have the conversation with Biden about the need to remove the threat.

The simple reality is as WOPR said on War Games - the only way to win is not to play. Nuclear War almost happened at least three times and all would have been a mistake. Lets not even get ourselves into the position where mistakes can happen. Yeltsin had his nuclear key activated in their launch order briefcase in 1995. He managed not to and he was permanently pissed.

Would Putin have the same restraint in a similar "we're under attack!!!" circumstances?

While the only way to win is not to play line is fun in a good movie, it's wrong.

You "win" by forcing the stalemate so that neither side plays. If you unilaterally refuse to play, under any circumstances, and unilaterally disarm then that gives the opposing side licence to act freely. As Ukraine who unilaterally disarmed have found.

So yes, Trident does protect the UK, because its very existence as a doomsday device serves its purpose.

Every day that Trident isn't fired, Trident is doing its job.

Chameleon

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

"deNazify" - hmmm. So the guys who are into "blood and soil nationalism" and have actual Nazi tattoos want what, exactly?

"demilitarise" - this is simpler. They want Ukraine to get rid of all the weapons with which they have been making Russia look bad.

As to Luhansk/Donetsk - any thoughts on this poll - https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraina_v_usloviyah_voyny_1_marta_2022.html

I guess that Nazifying will include purging all those on the Russian kill lists.

On that topic:

"NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official. The agency is also planning violent crowd control and repressive detention of protest organisers in order to break Ukrainian morale."

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

Russia doesn't have the manpower to hold down a nationwide insurgency, but it sure won't stop them trying.

Scott_xP

More indications of the demoralization of Russian soldiers: living on dry rations, understanding that they are being used as cannon fodder. https://twitter.com/girkingirkin/status/1499352556300079109

NickPalmer

BigRich said:

show previous quotes

CarlottaVance said:

Labour hold.

In other views:

We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1499272892172935168

Very sadly I fee that is accurate.

Broadly agree (though one lesson is never to go on holiday). Only reservation is that Putin doesn't seem to have a broad range of known associates - the war is presented very much as a one-man show. Or is that just how we're seeing it here and actually there are a lot of ministers and generals commenting enthusiastically on Russian TV?

MightyAlex

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?

CarlottaVance

Putin and Macron held a third phone call since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Putin told Macron that the tasks of the Russian military will be fulfilled "no matter what," according to Kremlin.

https://t.me/tass_agency/115788…
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1499368378582151168?s=20&t=KLlgWDkBZl4HiGUZDzgwqA

Polruan

BartholomewRoberts said:

show previous quotes

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

I guess I'm missing your point, but you're likely to act differently because covid is a more serious disease than a cold for many people. There are plenty of people who might not be at the extreme of "severely immunocompromised" who are still clinically vulnerable.

kle4

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

As you note the danger is a de facto boundary, which is what is problematic about the Luhansk/Donetsk option, since that any concession on that would be to reward Russia for its separatist campaign and support from 2014. In practical terms though unless there is a complete Russia rout clearly Russia is never giving that area back, regardless of it not being as 'Russian' as Crimea - they'd have to rescind their own recognition of the areas as 'independent, which feels like a stretch'.

But actually I think the biggest problem with your suggestion is Russia 'accepting Ukraine could join the EU in due course' - how to frame it as a concession, when Russia doesn't have any right other than by force of arms to prevent it? Wouldn't conceding that in effect be telling anyone else they may only act in foreign affairs by Russia's permission?

And that's assuming, even if with little option, Ukraine could trust Russia's word.

FrancisUrquhart

CarlottaVance said:

Labour hold.

In other views:

We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1499272892172935168

The other major concern is like a lot of countries (often made up of disparate demographics) which have been ruled by an authorities leader for many years, is removing the strong man in a coup or revolution often leads to huge amount of chaos in the short / medium term as then everybody is fighting for their slice of power.

Applicant

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

"The Sudetenland is our last territorial claim in Europe".

CarlottaVance

Polruan said:

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

I believe they are talking about all the leased planes in Russia, not just Aeroflot. Many airlines lease they aircraft. IIRC this means that, technically, an absurd proportion of the worlds airliners are actually *owned* in Ireland...

EDIT: Found it

https://simpleflying.com/biggest-aircraft-lessors/

https://simpleflying.com/irish-planes-russia/

Perhaps a stupid question, but given the closure of Russian airspace to most western-registered aircraft and vice versa, how would the planes actually get returned anyway? A very long taxi?

There are exceptions available - I’m sure a non revenue delivery return flight would get one.

BartholomewRoberts

Carnyx said:

show previous quotes

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

Oh right, just get Typhoid Mary in as cook. Just like any other summer diarrhoea.

Carnyx said:

show previous quotes

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

Oh right, just get Typhoid Mary in as cook. Just like any other summer diarrhoea.

I think you'd find that any cook with any diarrhoea going into work while they have diarrhoea would be cause for the Environmental Health Office to shut them down PDQ.

It doesn't matter what form of diarrhoea a cook has, you don't go into work with diarrhoea. No test necessary to determine what variant, you act based on symptoms and stay off work for 48 hours based on symptoms.

nico679

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

The problem is demilitarization, there’s no way Ukraine will accept being a sitting duck. The others seem realistically to be giving up things that are already gone forever but not sure Zelensky can agree to that.

And of course Russia’s demands might expand and they’ll make up something to justify asking for more.

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

Aslan

nico679 said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

The problem is demilitarization, there’s no way Ukraine will accept being a sitting duck. The others seem realistically to be giving up things that are already gone forever but not sure Zelensky can agree to that.

And of course Russia’s demands might expand and they’ll make up something to justify asking for more.

Also there is no value in Russia relinquishing territorial claims. They did that in 1991 and then turned around 20 years later and started making new ones.

kle4

tlg86 said:

Thank God for Brexit...

https://twitter.com/UtdDistrict/status/1499381384137396236

UtdDistrict 🇺🇦@UtdDistrict🗞 Two pages of the document that has been sent to the European Union detailing the new European Super League format, why they believe it is a positive change for football, and that the ESL is not a 'breakaway' league.

Whichever bright sparks designed the initial announcement and its PR should have been sacked immediately. It's not like UEFA and national associations are popular entities, but the whole concept - already on shaky grounds because it was so clearly nothing more than 'these particular clubs want more money' - was fatally undermined by the whole permanent members angle.

Which they have since dropped, but a bit like Putin announcing Ukraine is not a real country before invading it, is pretty indicative of the true motivations and aims even if they bring up new justifications and revisions.

I also love the classic whiners complaint about their proposal being 'misunderstood', even as the document makes clear the one of the biggest areas of complaint, the permanent members, was not misunderstood at all, and they have desperately sought to change that when they say how hated it was.

The point about the EU 'losing its control over football' seems designed purely to try and stir up possessiveness, like someone saying parliament was losing its control over something.

YBarddCwsc

Malmesbury said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

"deNazify" - hmmm. So the guys who are into "blood and soil nationalism" and have actual Nazi tattoos want what, exactly?

"demilitarise" - this is simpler. They want Ukraine to get rid of all the weapons with which they have been making Russia look bad.

As to Luhansk/Donetsk - any thoughts on this poll - https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraina_v_usloviyah_voyny_1_marta_2022.html

1. deNazify ... smells like Russian bullshit for consumption by the population at home.

2. de-militarize ... if this means Ukraine not joining NATO, but territorial integrity is guaranteed by everyone, that is fine by me. Russia accepts if Ukraine is invaded, the West will then intervene.

3. Well, of course, I repeatedly argued for a plebiscite, & Ukraine did have plenty of time to organise one. And I was repeatedly told on pb.com it was "too difficult" to organise a plebiscite, so we are now facing problems many orders of magnitude more difficult. Sadly, In times of war, the boundary is drawn by guns, not polls.

Russia gets Luhansk/Donetsk ... and any Russian living in the rest of the Ukraine who feels that they really have to live under the Russian flag is relocated there.

Richard_Nabavi

Sandpit said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

And those planes won't be able to fly outside Russia and a few client states, without being impounded and returned to their owners.

Scott_xP

Queues at #Minsk-Passenger railway station, #Belarus

After the hacker attack, tickets cannot be bought online. https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1499385307111821318/video/1

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

show previous quotes

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

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.

Hope you have tested, that is exactly how Omicron feels.

Even if you have Omicron, why bother testing? It's just a normal virus same as any other now.

If you don't feel up to going out, stay at home. If you do, go out. Don't visit those who are extremely vulnerable but that's always been the same even with the common cold.

Just use some sense. Tests are redundant since Covid or Cold you should act the same.

HMMMMMM, What if someone in your family has immune issues or is high risk. I would still like to know I had it and try not to give it to them. Still a good few dying due to it.

Would you visit someone with immune issues if you had a cold though? If not, what difference does it make?

It makes sense not to visit the severely immunocompromised whenever you've got a contagious disease whether it be Covid, cold or cough.

Going to a bar/restaurant/shops/cinema etc is an entirely different matter though.

Unless you're going to act differently between a cold and Covid, why do you need the test?

If you’re not going to act differently, I agree that a test is unnecessary. However, given COVID-19 remains more serious than a cold or flu, contrary to what some people online say, often the same people who think Putin is great, there may be many reasons to act differently.

Official Government advice is to self-isolate if you have COVID. That is not official Govt advice if you have a cold.

Applicant

YBarddCwsc said:

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

"deNazify" - hmmm. So the guys who are into "blood and soil nationalism" and have actual Nazi tattoos want what, exactly?

"demilitarise" - this is simpler. They want Ukraine to get rid of all the weapons with which they have been making Russia look bad.

As to Luhansk/Donetsk - any thoughts on this poll - https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraina_v_usloviyah_voyny_1_marta_2022.html

1. deNazify ... smells like Russian bullshit for consumption by the population at home.

2. de-militarize ... if this means Ukraine not joining NATO, but territorial integrity is guaranteed by everyone, that is fine by me. Russia accepts if Ukraine is invaded, the West will then intervene.

3. Well, of course, I repeatedly argued for a plebiscite, & Ukraine did have plenty of time to organise one. And I was repeatedly told on pb.com it was "too difficult" to organise a plebiscite, so we are now facing problems many orders of magnitude more difficult. Sadly, In times of war, the boundary is drawn by guns, not polls.

Russia gets Luhansk/Donetsk ... and any Russian living in the rest of the Ukraine who feels that the really have to live under the Russian flag is relocated there.

No, not "too difficult" - a travesty of democracy as great as the "plebiscites" in the Baltics in the 1940s or Crimea in 2014.

A "plebiscite" in stolen territory held at gunpoint is worthless.

Luckyguy1983

nico679 said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

The problem is demilitarization, there’s no way Ukraine will accept being a sitting duck. The others seem realistically to be giving up things that are already gone forever but not sure Zelensky can agree to that.

And of course Russia’s demands might expand and they’ll make up something to justify asking for more.

There will never be trust on either side, but stopping the killing and destruction in the short term seems a worthy goal.

Sandpit

Polruan said:

show previous quotes

Malmesbury said:

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

I believe they are talking about all the leased planes in Russia, not just Aeroflot. Many airlines lease they aircraft. IIRC this means that, technically, an absurd proportion of the worlds airliners are actually *owned* in Ireland...

EDIT: Found it

https://simpleflying.com/biggest-aircraft-lessors/

https://simpleflying.com/irish-planes-russia/

Perhaps a stupid question, but given the closure of Russian airspace to most western-registered aircraft and vice versa, how would the planes actually get returned anyway? A very long taxi?

What usually happens (in the West) is that the bank gets a court order, then sends a recovery agent with a pilot or two, to fly the plane out on a temporary permit.

What likely happens here, is that the planes get parted out and the expensive bits smuggled to Africa.

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

show previous quotes

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

And those planes won't be able to fly outside Russia and a few client states, without being impounded and returned to their owners.

Has Russia cut off it's airspace to anyone yet ?

kle4

MightyAlex said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?

A commitment to demilitarise on both sides perhaps? I'm going to guess that is a non-starter.

After all, Russia is facing economic reprisal and 'aggressive statements' as it put it from NATO and other countries, and so needs its military to defend itself from that hostile aggressor. Ukraine, meanwhile, has no such concern about a hostile aggressor right next door.

Foss

BigRich said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

BigRich said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Does Aroflot have 500 plains? maybe just seems a bit high

It wouldn’t just be Aeroflot. They’re suggesting it would be done by the government and would impact up to 515 planes.

Some of those planes may be quite small, but does anybody what to estimate how much money we are talking about here?

And also which banks and funds are on the hook?

Pulpstar

Looks to me like Russia is going full on Juche. The whole Millwall.

Luckyguy1983

Aslan said:

show previous quotes

nico679 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

The problem is demilitarization, there’s no way Ukraine will accept being a sitting duck. The others seem realistically to be giving up things that are already gone forever but not sure Zelensky can agree to that.

And of course Russia’s demands might expand and they’ll make up something to justify asking for more.

Also there is no value in Russia relinquishing territorial claims. They did that in 1991 and then turned around 20 years later and started making new ones.

Correct, there wouldn't be trust that Russia wouldn't try to swallow the rest of Ukraine at some future point.

williamglenn

US doesn't have off ramp in Russia/Ukraine situation, House Armed Services Cmte’s @RepAdamSmith on MSNBC. "I've asked that question to a lot of leaders, and at the end of the day, the answer comes down to simply: Right now there is no off ramp.” Says US trying to blunt invasion.

https://twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1499370949476601860

WhisperingOracle

Bad news - Putin seems to have spoken to Macron today. That means he's still fundamentally in place and with authority, at least to any symbolic extent.

CarlottaVance

NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

Nigelb

I don't think he was including the offensive denazifying stuff, TBF.

@YBarddCwsc might actually have a case, if that proposal were to include NATO membership for Ukraine.
Otherwise, as an offer it is, as pointed out, worthless.

BigRich

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Presumably this means that the planes can never be used on international flights, or they will be 'grounded and sized' in nations that do have the rule of Law and returned to the lease company?

WhisperingOracle

Farooq said:

show previous quotes

WhisperingOracle said:

Bad news - Putin seems to have spoken to Macron today. That means he's still fundamentally in place, at least to any symbolic extent.

Yes, but there's an election coming up and French voters have an opportunity to remove him if they choose.

Haha.

FrancisUrquhart

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

It is interesting how much the Russians leak like a sieve.

Aslan

FrancisUrquhart said:

show previous quotes

CarlottaVance said:

Labour hold.

In other views:

We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1499272892172935168

The other major concern is like a lot of countries (often made up of disparate demographics) which have been ruled by an authorities leader for many years, is removing the strong man in a coup or revolution often leads to huge amount of chaos in the short / medium term as then everybody is fighting for their slice of power.

I am not convinced about the conclusion of the Twitter thread. The success of a coup largely depends on what proportion of the powerful want it to happen. The powerful in today's Russia are a combination of siloviki, focused on maintaining Russian geopolitical power, and oligarchs, focused on maintaining their wealth and lifestyles.

The oligarchs are going to have an extreme desire to restore normalcy with the West to end sanctions. The siloviki are going to increasingly want to end an unwinnable war in Ukraine against an endless insurgency that saps Russian troops, money and reputation. And, even if Putin pulls the plug, he will be blamed for the catastrophe in the first place.

In most of the examples in the Twitter thread there was never the universal benefits of a coup as there will be over the next year or five.

CarlottaVance

Pulpstar said:

show previous quotes

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

And those planes won't be able to fly outside Russia and a few client states, without being impounded and returned to their owners.

Has Russia cut off it's airspace to anyone yet ?

Everyone who has blocked it

kle4

I've never thought NATO even wants Ukraine to join, not whilst there are territorial conflicts in it which is why Russian invasion to prevent it was pointless, not least since it increases all non-direct support from NATO anyway.

But even if that means a promise not to join NATO is technically a concession Ukraine might decide to make, the following is a hard sell:

If you are in NATO Russia probably won't invade your country because of the mutual defence clause
If you are not in NATO Russia will invade your country with impunity if it wishes to (notably, they have advanced multiple non-Nato ambition reasons on this occasion)
Accordingly, you must never seek to join NATO.

I mean, seeing what happens when you are not in NATO only makes it seem more desirable to seek it.

BigRich

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

That might have been 'lacked' deliberately to carat panic and therefore a big refugee problem.

WhisperingOracle

FrancisUrquhart said:

show previous quotes

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

It is interesting how much the Russians leak like a sieve.

Scary stuff, assuming not propaganda, not least because of the pressures on western public opinion , and so on governments afterwards a result.

Thinking with brutal rationality, which I don't like to, Western governments may have to prepare their populations for not intervening as a result of things like this.

philiph

Sandpit said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

On the first flight outside Russia and a very small list of fellow travelling states the planes will be impounded. They will just rot, which Russia knows, it is a financial harm to the west.

CarlottaVance

Aeroflots fleet:

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Aeroflot.htm

SirNorfolkPassmore

On topic, I appreciate the point OGH makes about this being a by-election in the West Midlands. However, it is specifically in Birmingham, which isn't all that typical, politically or demographically, of the wider West Midlands.

If you look at the West Midlands Mayoral election last year, Andy Street moved from a narrow win in 2017 to a pretty convincing one by doing well in places like Walsall, Wolverhampton, and Dudley. There was very little movement in Birmingham.

It might still have been made competitive if the political environment was as it was this time last year. But, realistically, I don't think 10-1 is value for the Conservatives to spring a surprise.

Pulpstar

CarlottaVance said:

show previous quotes

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

And those planes won't be able to fly outside Russia and a few client states, without being impounded and returned to their owners.

Has Russia cut off it's airspace to anyone yet ?

Everyone who has blocked it

Looking at flightradar24.com this looks to me like a massive competitive advantage for Chinese carriers in particular.

TheValiant

BigRich said:

FPT:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

Estonian owned cargo ship Helt sinks off Ukrainian coast near Odessa after explosion – Reuters, citing ship manager

Helt cargo ship may have hit mine - ship manager.

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1499368823136432131

If this ship was sunk by the Russians, does this count as an acct of war by Russia against a NATO Nation?

Both yes and no. Russia will claim its an active warzone (to us anyway, not to their own people) and the Estonian ship should've known better.

We're not going to go to war over this. It isn't the Lusitania, and even if it was, we'd turn a blind eye anyway!

YBarddCwsc

MightyAlex said:

show previous quotes

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?

I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).

So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.

And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.

I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.

Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.

CarlottaVance

The expression on the TV presenter’s face as her expert goes seriously off message

The regime’s narrative breaking on TV: This interviewed trader suddenly takes a Seltzer to drink in memory of the Moscow stock market.
“My only job from now on will be working as a Santa. Cheers to our stock market death.”

https://twitter.com/page_eco/status/1499312352021577732

Malmesbury

WhisperingOracle said:

show previous quotes

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, has drafted plans for public executions in #Ukraine after cities are captured, per a European intelligence official

https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1499381363010682881

It is interesting how much the Russians leak like a sieve.

Scary stuff, assuming not propaganda, not least because of the pressures on western public opinion , and so on governments afterwards a result.

Thinking with brutal rationality, which I don't like to, Western governments may have to prepare their populations for not intervening as a result of things like this.

I've got a new idea for deterrence.

Like Britain's Got Talent, but with the audience polling hardwired to the Trident launch system.

"Well, Mr Dictator, we can't do anything. Your Hitler tribute act looks like it's getting voted off the planet. Nothing we can do. Sorry."

TheWhiteRabbit

Sandpit said:

show previous quotes

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

I know planes are leased. But do you actually ever return them? Or is it merely a payment mechanism to spread the cost over the lifespan of the plane?

rottenborough

Dozhd, Russia’s only independent television channel, will stop broadcasting after Thursday, its chief executive, Natalia Sindeyeva, said on the air. Combined with Thursday’s shutting down of the Echo of Moscow radio station, major independent broadcast media outlets have now all but ceased operating inside Russia. Russian lawmakers on Friday will take up a bill to make “fakes” about the war in Ukraine — which the Kremlin says is not a war — punishable by as much as 15 years in prison.

NY Time blog

Seems Putin is making RU a total one man dictatorship with all discussion closed off and just public lies allowed. Everything else - you are off to prison. Shows levels of desperation,

But, incidentally GOP voters, this is what happens in the end when you build a state on lies and smothering reality.

SirNorfolkPassmore

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Surely that can't work for an airline in the long term anyway?

If you're going to do that then you need to physically keep your assets out of any country where your creditors can get hold of them. But, if you're an airline, your whole business model involves flying your major assets to different countries. For the time being, they aren't doing that... but when normality returns (as it will at some point) they don't really have the option of keeping their assets in Russia (unless they become a 100% domestic airline). It also buggers their chance of acquiring planes in future.

YBarddCwsc

Nigelb said:

I don't think he was including the offensive denazifying stuff, TBF.

@YBarddCwsc might actually have a case, if that proposal were to include NATO membership for Ukraine.
Otherwise, as an offer it is, as pointed out, worthless.

I think unfortunately NATO membership won't be accepted by Russia.

But, there should be a way to guarantee Ukraine's territory without Ukraine formally joining NATO.

Benpointer

TheWhiteRabbit said:

show previous quotes

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

I know planes are leased. But do you actually ever return them? Or is it merely a payment mechanism to spread the cost over the lifespan of the plane?

Well, they're not going to be making the payments either.

WhisperingOracle

rottenborough said:

Dozhd, Russia’s only independent television channel, will stop broadcasting after Thursday, its chief executive, Natalia Sindeyeva, said on the air. Combined with Thursday’s shutting down of the Echo of Moscow radio station, major independent broadcast media outlets have now all but ceased operating inside Russia. Russian lawmakers on Friday will take up a bill to make “fakes” about the war in Ukraine — which the Kremlin says is not a war — punishable by as much as 15 years in prison.

NY Time blog

Seems Putin is making RU a total one man dictatorship with all discussion closed off and just public lies allowed. Everything else - you are off to prison. Shows levels of desperation,

But, incidentally GOP voters, this is what happens in the end when you build a state on lies and smothering reality.

Great stuff. North Korea here we come ; maybe Putin has had a challenge and fought it off.

CarlottaVance

A friend from Moscow is racing toward the border with the Baltics, has been driving all night—no plane tickets left. "We're trying to get there before the president's address to the nation," friend says, referring to widespread rumors that Putin is about to declare martial law.

"Stop texting me," friend asks, "I'm trying to clean out my phone. They're searching everyone's phone at the border. I'll write to you once I'm on the other side."

https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1499368653501915137

bondegezou

TheWhiteRabbit said:

show previous quotes

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

According to a source in Aeroflot, #Russia will not return airplanes leased from European companies (more than 500). Trust in protection of property rights will disappear. Who will ever send any machinery to Russia again?

https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1499373653372420099

Well, thats a few more leasing companies, banks and insurers, vowing never to do business with Russia again.

Watch out for smuggled plane parts appearing with the dodgy Chinese fakes in Africa over time.

I know planes are leased. But do you actually ever return them? Or is it merely a payment mechanism to spread the cost over the lifespan of the plane?

Yes, they get returned.

kinabalu

Theuniondivvie said:

Fckn hell.

Covid denier ✔
Anti masker ✔
Vaccine sceptic ✔
Massive narcissistic rsole ✔
Putinist ✔

Brings to mind this recent piece of chin-stroke from Lozza Fox.

It’s depressing to realise that once you know someone’s views on Covid, you can predict with a high degree of accuracy their views on pretty much everything else. Humanity has become just two warring tribes now. Nuance is the collateral damage of the social media age.

How about that eh? - "Nuance is the collateral damage of the social media age".

From Lozza Fox there.

JosiasJessop

YBarddCwsc said:

show previous quotes

MightyAlex said:

YBarddCwsc said:

"Russia's negotiating position - according to the country's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov - is that:

- Ukraine must "demilitarise" and "deNazify"
- Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014 - is recognised by Kyiv as part of Russia
- Two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine - self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic are formally recognised." (Source: BBC)

I'd say Ukraine could give up Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk in return for Russia relinquishing all further territorial claims in Ukraine and for Russia accepting Ukraine can join the EU in due course.

Crimea has a Russian majority. Luhansk/Donetsk I really don't know -- but if they can get an acknowledgment that the rest of the Ukraine is not Russian, then it is surely worth it (cf Karelia & Finland).

The danger now is a de facto boundary is established by war that is actually much worse for Ukraine. Once population movements start (cf Northern Cyprus, Palestine), they can be very difficult to undo.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine (minus Crimea & Luhansk/Donetsk) would then need formal guarantees from the international community.

I expect my solution is hugely unpopular on pb,com -- but the Palestinians by repeatedly asking for almost everything have ended up with almost nothing.

If you 'demilitarise' what stops a later Russian coup?

I think there would have to be safeguards for Ukraine's democracy-- maybe immediate admission to the EU for the Ukraine? (Not really for us to say, as we are no longer in the EU, I agree).

So, then, Ukraine ends up with almost all of its present territory, and in the EU asap.

And Russia ends up with Crimea (which Ukraine has no real claim to) and two depressed post-industrial territories.

I think Ukraine would then have got a good deal, actually.

Sadly, what I think is going to happen is Ukraine is going to be partitioned. And population movements will entrench the de facto boundary.

Russia claim this move is to protect Russian peoples. Yet the places it is invading happen to have large oil and gas deposits. So let them keep the land and the people, and let Ukraine have the oil and gas. It can be part of their reparations.

Simples ... (not)

rottenborough

Could RU end up as Europe's N Korea. Totally sealed off? No one has no idea what is happening in there?

Seems impossible to think with a country so big and so many borders on edge of europe.