I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
I'm actually wondering if there is confusion somewhere (not by you!) with that dinky double lightning rune key that many German typewriters of the NS-Zeit had. Not something to be found on Word today, I assume, though I've never looked.
ϟϟ is copy and pastable from the internet, so I assume it is unicode
THere are, on occasion, things I learn on PB which I wish I had not.
Presumably, at some point Putin is going to say: I'll call a ceasefire if you reverse all the financial sanctions.
What does the West do then?
Nothing without full withdrawal from Ukraine
Pre 2014 borders ?
Maybe Crimea retained but not sure
To be honest as we have come this far the objective must be the fall of Putin, otherwise in a few years time he could just recoup and again threaten us all with nuclear weapons and we are back to square one
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
I spoke to a Moscow based Russian today. He is out of foreign currency. He is also more or less out of roubles. Because his cards don’t work and he can’t draw more without an appointment at the bank, which are hard to come by. And prices are presumably already rising. I expect he is typical. Better placed than most actually given his income level and education. Described it as the darkest days in Russia in his lifetime.
After Lehman’s collapsed, I recall Robert Peston wetting his pants about the ATMs not working the next day, so the clunking fist printed money to bail out all the banks. What is happening in Russia this week is what happens without a viable route to the bail out. It’s remarkable how little coverage this is getting. Not so good for viewing figures as war porn I suppose.
Why can't they print roubles? Is that a daft question?
I am hearing from a contact that certain pharma, detergent and printer ink is now hard to get hold of.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
I'm baffled as to how anything could be running short already. Is there only a week's stock of these items in Russia?
From a couple of years ago all leaders know that you are always only 48 hours away from a loo-roll riot, followed by a coup, show trials and liquidations.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
I am hearing from a contact that certain pharma, detergent and printer ink is now hard to get hold of.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
I'm baffled as to how anything could be running short already. Is there only a week's stock of these items in Russia?
From a couple of years ago all leaders know that you are always only 48 hours away from a loo-roll riot, followed by a coup, show trials and liquidations.
Well, in snowflake Britain obviously, but I thought grudging acceptance/expectation of shortages was in the Russian DNA.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Sienna Rodgers @siennamarla · 4m Labour concernee about low turnout in Birmingham Erdington, already a very low turnout seat but by-election + bad weather doesn’t help. Labour source: “The weather’s absolutely grim and turnout is looking extremely low. It’s going to be really tight.”
Pure expectation management. Labour will win easily.
There is nothing shown for the LibDems on Betfair but the graph suggests there is £9 at 600 if anyone wants it, then it is even money with nothing to lay. Back in the real world:- Con 13 so longer than OGH took Lab 1.06
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Well yes.
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions) or Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO) or Nuclear holocaust
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
Honestly, Putin ends up hanging from a lamppost the minute he suggests a first strike nuclear attack. He may not care about the devastation that would inevitably be inflicted on Russia should one be launched, the military commanders absolutely do.
I spoke to a Moscow based Russian today. He is out of foreign currency. He is also more or less out of roubles. Because his cards don’t work and he can’t draw more without an appointment at the bank, which are hard to come by. And prices are presumably already rising. I expect he is typical. Better placed than most actually given his income level and education. Described it as the darkest days in Russia in his lifetime.
After Lehman’s collapsed, I recall Robert Peston wetting his pants about the ATMs not working the next day, so the clunking fist printed money to bail out all the banks. What is happening in Russia this week is what happens without a viable route to the bail out. It’s remarkable how little coverage this is getting. Not so good for viewing figures as war porn I suppose.
Why can't they print roubles? Is that a daft question?
Vladimir Putin is no Gordon Brown.
One claimed he saved the world, the other will probably destroy it.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Presumably, at some point Putin is going to say: I'll call a ceasefire if you reverse all the financial sanctions.
What does the West do then?
Nothing without full withdrawal from Ukraine
And half the NordStream revenues going to Ukraine as reparations. For the next fifty years.
Only half? Why so soft? I mean, didn't the Versailles Treaty prove to be a complete disaster because it was too soft on Germany?
Point of fact - the Versailles treaty was preventing the next war, until it stopped being implemented.
It would have taken Germany a decade to get ready for war - as it was, 1932-1939 wasn't long enough to get a surface fleet worth a damn, for a start. That would have taken until 1942. But the economy would have collapsed by then....
Presumably, at some point Putin is going to say: I'll call a ceasefire if you reverse all the financial sanctions.
What does the West do then?
Nothing without full withdrawal from Ukraine
Pre 2014 borders ?
Maybe Crimea retained but not sure
To be honest as we have come this far the objective must be the fall of Putin, otherwise in a few years time he could just recoup and again threaten us all with nuclear weapons and we are back to square one
FWIW, if I were Ukraine, I wouldn't want Crimea. But I would want financial compensation for the Ukrainians who were displaced when Russia wanted to ensure 100% in the reunification vote.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
I think this is sensible from Macron: "I spoke to President Putin this morning. He refuses to stop his attacks on Ukraine at this point. It is vital to maintain dialogue to avoid human tragedy. I will continue my efforts and contacts. We must avoid the worst."
"Maintaining dialogue to protect the people, obtaining measures that will avoid human tragedy, putting an end to this war: this is the purpose of my commitment alongside President Zelensky and the international community. I am and will remain fully determined."
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
"After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google..."
Born on August 21, 1973, in Moscow in the Soviet Union.
Not sure if he a dual national or has renounced Russian citizenship
Can you renounce Russian citizenship?
Been an American since he was 6.
But he is ROOOOOSIAN!
I rather think the Russian government takes a view that born there etc....
I remember a briefing by an oil company that when travelling to Russia, you needed to be careful of having enough immediate ancestors to claim Russian citizenship.
Apparently it wasn't unknown for the Russians to say that since you had a couple of Russian grandparents, you are a Russian citizen, have a nice jail cell for invented crimes. And then start asking for a processing fee to get you out.
My old boss was on a business trip to Moscow in the early 2000s, was sight-seeing near the Kremlin when he got bundled in a van by a load of policeman who were looking for a bribe. Never experienced anything like that on my own travels to be fair.
I am hearing from a contact that certain pharma, detergent and printer ink is now hard to get hold of.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
Young men are “disappearing into the countryside” to avoid conscription.
I went to order printer ink and it has gone up from £64 to £100 last week
Seems you are right re printer ink generally
Chemical supply chains getting fucked? You might be surprised how much as been outsourced to Ukraine. It was the New Poland/Bulgaria of a cheap place to do business.....
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Well yes.
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions) or Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO) or Nuclear holocaust
As someone pointed out to me on here, everything keeps coming back to 'gone full tonto'.
As an aside, this is why I am mildly sceptical about Russian GDP estimates. Aiui there is a lot of free stuff that, if the state were to charge, and pay everyone benefits to cover the charges, would boost GDP without making the slightest difference. Not to say Russia is not, even in normal times, underperforming though.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
Honestly, Putin ends up hanging from a lamppost the minute he suggests a first strike nuclear attack. He may not care about the devastation that would inevitably be inflicted on Russia should one be launched, the military commanders absolutely do.
Yes I've wondered about that. In much the same way there was discussion about the US military refusing to carry out an unjustified nuclear strike if ordered by Trump. (I'd feel much more confident about the US military though.)
I think this is sensible from Macron: "I spoke to President Putin this morning. He refuses to stop his attacks on Ukraine at this point. It is vital to maintain dialogue to avoid human tragedy. I will continue my efforts and contacts. We must avoid the worst."
"Maintaining dialogue to protect the people, obtaining measures that will avoid human tragedy, putting an end to this war: this is the purpose of my commitment alongside President Zelensky and the international community. I am and will remain fully determined."
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Well yes.
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions) or Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO) or Nuclear holocaust
Which is a big worry. He might think the last of these is the best option because, f*ck-it, if he's going down, so can the rest of the world.
ETA I like this conversation so much I've saved a copy for future use. Bellyflops like this are a once in a lifetime event.
Isn't that the point, the government is doing it methodically where they have got a legally watertight case rather than a big broad brush which gets more people but ends up being reversed. This is two clear cut cases and I'm sure the government's legal teams have combed through the consequences and potential legal defence of Usmanov and feel they could win in court. If anything this undermines your point that it's easy to achieve.
Sure, but it's remarkable how weeks and months has shrunk to inside of a working day.
But the work going into this didn't just start yesterday. These two are already the culmination of weeks if work to get a legally defensible case together. To get that for the 20-30 we'd probably look to sanction it's going to take a while. I also note that these sanctions are being brought without new primary legislation, again proving my point that it's better to use current legal framework than use executive power and the government majority to target individuals.
1. The invasion started a week ago. A week. 7 days.
2. The govt line this morning was weeks or months needed, starting now.
The invasion may have started 7 days ago, yet the government has had intelligence briefings for a while around it being a certainty. Are you suggesting that the work on sanctions only started on the invasion day?
It’s been going on for weeks. I know someone has been working on them. Long days and weekend working too. As you say they had the intelligence.
Course you do. Course you do. Because people who work on this stuff definitely, definitely blab about it to people who blab about the blabbing on the internet because they think it makes them sound cool. Happens all the time. I'm one of Toby Esterhazy's lamplighters myself.
Ha ha, state of this mug. I was addressing Max not you.
I’ve no need nor reason to lie. It was hardly a secret or broken any NDA’s. Feel free to come back with your usual retarded nonsense. I am going back to ignoring you.
Thanks, Jiz. I wonder you didn't disclose this at the time, when it would have bought you genuine kudos (because nobody called it for sure until it happened)? Oh yes, I know, it's because you are lying. google "aftertiming."
NDAs, ffs. Any job that doesn't involve flipping burgers comes with a duty of confidentiality. I wonder why you don't know that?
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Well yes.
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions) or Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO) or Nuclear holocaust
Which is a big worry. He might think the last of these is the best option because, f*ck-it, if he's going down, so can the rest of the world.
So Western policy needs to push him to (2) or perhaps a (2) that looks like a “win” for him.
Unless his people get him first, but I’m a skeptic about that.
Presumably, at some point Putin is going to say: I'll call a ceasefire if you reverse all the financial sanctions.
What does the West do then?
Nothing without full withdrawal from Ukraine
Pre 2014 borders ?
Maybe Crimea retained but not sure
To be honest as we have come this far the objective must be the fall of Putin, otherwise in a few years time he could just recoup and again threaten us all with nuclear weapons and we are back to square one
FWIW, if I were Ukraine, I wouldn't want Crimea. But I would want financial compensation for the Ukrainians who were displaced when Russia wanted to ensure 100% in the reunification vote.
Ukraine wants Crimea so it can't be invaded from three directions next time. Also, everyone seems to assume that anyone ethnically Russian hates Ukraine. The Crimean ethnic Russians have been perfectly happy living under Ukrainian rule since 1991. Give them autonomy within Ukraine. Or, if you really want compromise, let them be independent and dangle EU membership in front of them.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
"After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google..."
Born on August 21, 1973, in Moscow in the Soviet Union.
Not sure if he a dual national or has renounced Russian citizenship
Can you renounce Russian citizenship?
Been an American since he was 6.
But he is ROOOOOSIAN!
I rather think the Russian government takes a view that born there etc....
I remember a briefing by an oil company that when travelling to Russia, you needed to be careful of having enough immediate ancestors to claim Russian citizenship.
Apparently it wasn't unknown for the Russians to say that since you had a couple of Russian grandparents, you are a Russian citizen, have a nice jail cell for invented crimes. And then start asking for a processing fee to get you out.
My old boss was on a business trip to Moscow in the early 2000s, was sight-seeing near the Kremlin when he got bundled in a van by a load of policeman who were looking for a bribe. Never experienced anything like that on my own travels to be fair.
Russia in the late 90s and early 2000s was a party.
One chap, was doing contract exploration work (oil). Siberia. The local thugs popped into his office to ask for some money. A few hundred bucks. To start.....
He knew the world. So he went to see the local MVD (?) big cheese. Those guys were police, but with big guns. So he tells the Big Cheese, here's $50K - cash. He'd like the problem to go away. The Big Cheese nods.
That night Big Cheese gets his guys and all their toys and goes to the club house in the woods where the thugs hung out. They opened fire - use a years worth of ammunition. Club house, thugs, bar tenders. Everyone dead.
Turns out that $50K wasn't the price for getting the police on your side - more like the price of a hit on *everyone*. The oil company chap had slightly over estimated the prices.....
He left town, right quick. They say though, for years afterwards, no one would even think of asking for a bribe from that company...
I think this is sensible from Macron: "I spoke to President Putin this morning. He refuses to stop his attacks on Ukraine at this point. It is vital to maintain dialogue to avoid human tragedy. I will continue my efforts and contacts. We must avoid the worst."
"Maintaining dialogue to protect the people, obtaining measures that will avoid human tragedy, putting an end to this war: this is the purpose of my commitment alongside President Zelensky and the international community. I am and will remain fully determined."
It’s positioned itself well as a intermediary power between the West and the rest, and as the foreign policy vanguard within the EU.
The France/India axis is one to watch in the future.
Sorry, that's impossible. The UK leads on everything, world-beatingly; Boris keeps telling me, so it must be true. Macron is just a French popinjay, surely?
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
I am hearing from a contact that certain pharma, detergent and printer ink is now hard to get hold of.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
Young men are “disappearing into the countryside” to avoid conscription.
I went to order printer ink and it has gone up from £64 to £100 last week
Seems you are right re printer ink generally
Chemical supply chains getting fucked? You might be surprised how much as been outsourced to Ukraine. It was the New Poland/Bulgaria of a cheap place to do business.....
Yes, 80% of the world’s neon… which you get from the atmosphere.
And this is on top of Covid. And all completely pointless
‘LONDON, March 3 (Reuters) - JPMorgan said on Thursday it expected Russia's economy to contract 35% in the second quarter and 7% in 2022 with the economy suffering an economic output decline comparable to the 1998 crisis.’
Many on the thread saying this is way too optimistic for Russia
I’m struggling to make sense of those numbers. It’s only just March. Down 35% in the quarter but only 7% for the year?
Yes. That basically assumes that Q1, Q3 and Q4 will all be perfectly normal quarters. (35% of 25% = 7-8%).
So it's a rubbish forecast.
Or potentially pricing in regime change and removal of sanctions. If it's as you say then it's completely idiotic, the -35% for Q2 sets a new lower baseline.
If the Russian economy does NOT bounce back Putin will - on these figures - have shrunk the Russian economy by a third, in order to gain the enmity of the entire world, ruin his country’s moral reputation, and make his vaunted army look pathetically laughable, in order to gain control of loads and loads of rubble, and rule over 40 million people who all want him dead, and might try to arrange that
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Well yes.
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions) or Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO) or Nuclear holocaust
Wouldn't option three be an admission of defeat?
I doubt the bastard would be bothered about the death, suffering and end of civilisation as we know it, but I'm not sure he could actually countenance the idea that he might have been wrong.
(On reflection, there are one or two on PB a bit like that, but they don't have nukes so we don't get to test just how far they would be prepared to go,)
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
Yes, then he suggested that being in the EU which would make repealing the HRA pretty difficult was a net benefit, essentially having a technocratic class to save us from ourselves.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
Yes, then he suggested that being in the EU which would make repealing the HRA pretty difficult was a net benefit, essentially having a technocratic class to save us from ourselves.
Perhaps he can clarify?
Fairly confident he would be happy with a bill of rights or human rights act that had a judiciary to protect it without any technocratic class involved. EU is tangential here.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
Who guards the Guardians?
The best version of the answer I have seen is the Swiss one - every law passed can be repealed by a referendum. So the people are the Guardians.
But what if the politicians try to muck with that? Well, to repeal the referendum law would take... a referendum
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
Of course. But what if there is no agreement?
Sanctions stay in place of course.
Jeez! Can you read my original question again?
If you back down at that sort of asymmetric threat then there's no incentive to not keep on doing it.
"EU unanimously agrees to grant temporary residence to refugees
The EU has agreed to grant temporary residence to Ukrainians fleeing the war, for up to three years.
EU ministers gave the plans the green light at a meeting in Brussels today.
The bloc's triggered a mechanism - that’s never been used before - to allow Ukrainian nationals and their families the right to work, education and welfare.
The EU says that those who held long-term residence or refugee status in Ukraine would also be covered - either by the directive or national rules. And that temporary workers or students, who aren't eligible, would be helped to get home."
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
Of course. But what if there is no agreement?
Sanctions stay in place of course.
Jeez! Can you read my original question again?
Sanctions have to stay in place if Russia threaten a nuclear attack yes. At that point it is up to other senior Russian government officials to deal with it, not the West. Otherwise every time Putin wants more he just says gimme or nuclear.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I was thinking more of a palace coup. Top technocrats, generals, spies, oligarchs. They can see the catastrophe unfolding for Russia
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
Yes, then he suggested that being in the EU which would make repealing the HRA pretty difficult was a net benefit, essentially having a technocratic class to save us from ourselves.
Perhaps he can clarify?
Fairly confident he would be happy with a bill of rights or human rights act that had a judiciary to protect it without any technocratic class involved. EU is tangential here.
You don't understand the UK in that case, parliament is sovereign and whatever bill of rights or HRA could just be repealed. The point Kinabalu was making was the EU stands in the way of that action, it was actually a point made by many pro-EU people at the time of the referendum.
Would military people really be prepared to end life on this planet because Putin has had his ego hurt in Ukraine?
It's surprising what people will do to avoid being yelled at, or lose their careers, before we even get into more personal or phsyical means of persuasion and threat.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
If there is an agreement Ukraine and Russia are okay with then the worst of the sanctions will be removed. If Putin is in power then some will still be kept in place, but not anywhere near as restrictive as now.
Of course. But what if there is no agreement?
Sanctions stay in place of course.
Jeez! Can you read my original question again?
Sanctions have to stay in place if Russia threaten a nuclear attack yes. At that point it is up to other senior Russian government officials to deal with it, not the West. Otherwise every time Putin wants more he just says gimme or nuclear.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
Ah so maybe I at long last spot a benefit of Brexit. It's now that little bit easier for the government to enact things which violate fundamental human rights.
Is your faith in the UK so weak that you need that comfort blanket?
I think it's good to have some fundamental things that must be respected regardless of what any particular UK government of the moment decides it wants to do. That we did and now don't - if such is the case - is imo a regression.
It shows your lack of confidence in democracy, IMO, that you would take that lever away from the people and hand it to faceless technocrats.
It would be easier to have faith in democracy if Western countries had not been electing increasingly authoritarian and kleptocratic governments over the last two decades. We are also facing massive technological change that may be particularly useful for authoritarian regimes to track and control individuals. Fears are well founded, and those who dismiss them are being naive.
But who's to say that the faceless technocrat won't also do the same, at least with politicians we can vote them out.
Dividing power between different branches of government reduces the power of the executive. An all powerful parliament, led by an executive that is not checked by its MPs is not a good system in the long run.
But it is checked by voters, in you're scenario what's to stop the technocrats from doing all of these unnamed awful things and how do the people remove their hands from the levers of power?
AIUI there is nothing to stop a parliament saying the next election is 50 years away, or that we are replacing constituencies with voting 1 representative per council, so it is not properly checked by voters without a written constitution or some enduring bill of rights that is hard for a parliament to remove.
The courts, or as you prefer to call them for some reason, autocrats, are not able to do take power as they have different and separate powers to the executive and legislature.
But I'm not talking about the courts? I'm talking about the idea of having some technocrats sitting above the sovereignty of parliament meaning that the government is unable to make some decisions.
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
Who do you think enforces the Human Rights Act?
You've completed missed the context of the conversation in that case. Kinabalu would like a layer of technocrats that sit above parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the government is unable to repeal the HRA or other laws he deems as more important than the democratic will of the voters. I disagree with his premise and as I said, I think it shows a lack of confidence in democracy on his part.
He started with "I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things".
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
Yes, then he suggested that being in the EU which would make repealing the HRA pretty difficult was a net benefit, essentially having a technocratic class to save us from ourselves.
Perhaps he can clarify?
Fairly confident he would be happy with a bill of rights or human rights act that had a judiciary to protect it without any technocratic class involved. EU is tangential here.
You don't understand the UK in that case, parliament is sovereign and whatever bill of rights or HRA could just be repealed. The point Kinabalu was making was the EU stands in the way of that action, it was actually a point made by many pro-EU people at the time of the referendum.
Understanding the status quo and wanting a different structure are not mutually exclusive.
"EU unanimously agrees to grant temporary residence to refugees
The EU has agreed to grant temporary residence to Ukrainians fleeing the war, for up to three years.
EU ministers gave the plans the green light at a meeting in Brussels today.
The bloc's triggered a mechanism - that’s never been used before - to allow Ukrainian nationals and their families the right to work, education and welfare.
The EU says that those who held long-term residence or refugee status in Ukraine would also be covered - either by the directive or national rules. And that temporary workers or students, who aren't eligible, would be helped to get home."
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Can't see Russia giving up Crimea even if Putin is deposed. As for the Erdington by-election, as poor a candidate as Paulette Hamilton is I'd be astonished if Labour didn't win reasonably comfortable tonight, let alone lose the seat.
Still, not to worry, the Third Horseman approaches. Famine
⚡️Economist says Russian invasion could lead to largest wheat shortage in history.
The invasion will cause a massive supply shock and nothing can be done in the short term to prevent it, according to @ScottIrwinUI, as quoted by Bloomberg.’
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I was thinking more of a palace coup. Top technocrats, generals, spies, oligarchs. They can see the catastrophe unfolding for Russia
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
I had a terrible thought earlier.
In Washington they must be at least game planning the ultimate: a first strike to take this madman out before he burns the world to hell.
BREAKING: RT America is ceasing productions and laying off its staff, according to a memo I have obtained from the production company behind the Russia-backed network.
Still, not to worry, the Third Horseman approaches. Famine
⚡️Economist says Russian invasion could lead to largest wheat shortage in history.
The invasion will cause a massive supply shock and nothing can be done in the short term to prevent it, according to @ScottIrwinUI, as quoted by Bloomberg.’
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
Probably more than one.
And nobody can get close to him. See the long table pictures? Big guy in doorway to left? Always a TV crew, is there a bodygaurd there? He isolates for his survival
Shoutout for the Polish ambassador - the only one to stick around.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1499474258283614213 Polish Ambassador Bartosz Cichocki sat in a 2nd-floor room lined with large windows, wearing a soccer jersey and sipping a glass scotch, full of bravado, and shrugging off the missile explosions that reverberated through the Ukrainian capital.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I was thinking more of a palace coup. Top technocrats, generals, spies, oligarchs. They can see the catastrophe unfolding for Russia
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
I had a terrible thought earlier.
In Washington they must be at least game planning the ultimate: a first strike to take this madman out before he burns the world to hell.
I read somewhere that Putin is now in some deep bunker under the Urals, presumably for just this reason. Would explain his latest meetings by Zoom
It may be bollocks of course. Perhaps he confidently strides the Kremlin? But he can’t be that confident, he will know assassination is a real threat
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
Probably more than one.
Picky and wrong
"a person or group of people employed to escort and protect an important or famous person."
Still, not to worry, the Third Horseman approaches. Famine
⚡️Economist says Russian invasion could lead to largest wheat shortage in history.
The invasion will cause a massive supply shock and nothing can be done in the short term to prevent it, according to @ScottIrwinUI, as quoted by Bloomberg.’
Labour has called on the Tories to return money from donors with links to Russiain response to tensions over Vladimir Putin’s military buildup on the Ukrainian border.
In a joint letter, David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, called on ministers to address Russian finance flowing into the UK.
Writing to their counterparts, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, both possible contenders to succeed Boris Johnson in No 10, Lammy and Reeves said: “Donors who have made money from Russia or have alleged links to the Putin regime have given £1.93m to either the Conservative party or individual Conservative associations since Boris Johnson took power in July 2019. Will the Conservative party agree to return it?”
Wow 1.93m in three years that's about 700k per year or about 2k per Conservative MP.
Can I ask Conservative members here if they're not embarrassed that their party can be bought for such trivial amounts of money ?
Are Conservative politicians so addicted to unearned money that they're willing to damage themselves so much for so little ?
Its the political funding equivalent of a beggar looking for fag ends in the gutter.
I am hearing from a contact that certain pharma, detergent and printer ink is now hard to get hold of.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
I'm baffled as to how anything could be running short already. Is there only a week's stock of these items in Russia?
From a couple of years ago all leaders know that you are always only 48 hours away from a loo-roll riot, followed by a coup, show trials and liquidations.
Well, in snowflake Britain obviously, but I thought grudging acceptance/expectation of shortages was in the Russian DNA.
Equally, Russia does have form for revolutions. 1905, 1917 (x2), and 1991.
They are willing to suffer a lot, but when desperate enough, brave enough.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I was thinking more of a palace coup. Top technocrats, generals, spies, oligarchs. They can see the catastrophe unfolding for Russia
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
People around a dictator will constantly be asking themselves this question.
Is it safer to stick with him, or to remove him?
If they conclude the latter, Putin will be removed swiftly and efficiently, like Beria. Russians are very good at coups d'etat. These are usually almost bloodless, at the point of flagrante delicto, even if executions follow afterwards.
Ok let's assume the sanctions stay for a period...
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
With these horrendous economic prognoses, there MUST be people close to Putin, close to power, who realise the Ukraine war is an error of galactic magnitude. They are not stupid. They won’t just be watching Russia Today
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
Assassins who fail to kill their target don't usually do so well.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
I was thinking more of a palace coup. Top technocrats, generals, spies, oligarchs. They can see the catastrophe unfolding for Russia
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
I had a terrible thought earlier.
In Washington they must be at least game planning the ultimate: a first strike to take this madman out before he burns the world to hell.
Comments
To be honest as we have come this far the objective must be the fall of Putin, otherwise in a few years time he could just recoup and again threaten us all with nuclear weapons and we are back to square one
Again, I trust the British people to be responsible and vote out any government which tries to restrict our rights. I trust our democracy to not need a technocrat class that can ignore voters.
But basic foodstuffs are still fine.
Young men are “disappearing into the countryside” to avoid conscription.
But that first figure - 35% - is still quite something
I assume there’s a bit of that going on.
Seems you are right re printer ink generally
In a few weeks Putin says "These sanctions are aimed at destroying Russia, therefore unless they're stopped we will launch a nuclear attack."
How does that play out, I wonder?
Even if the sanctions were dropped is anyone going to trade with Russia for the foreseeable future?
Every time I try to see a way out of this mess, I cannot see a safe one.
It makes the 2nd Iraq war look like a brilliant piece of historic statecraft
Con 13 so longer than OGH took
Lab 1.06
There's no good outcome for Putin now:
Afghanistan II (but with massive financial sanctions)
or
Retreat (and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO)
or
Nuclear holocaust
It would have taken Germany a decade to get ready for war - as it was, 1932-1939 wasn't long enough to get a surface fleet worth a damn, for a start. That would have taken until 1942. But the economy would have collapsed by then....
Will they move? Do you just stand by as an autocrat destroys your own country? They too will have kids and hopes and dreams for a better Russia, not this squalid disaster
"I spoke to President Putin this morning. He refuses to stop his attacks on Ukraine at this point. It is vital to maintain dialogue to avoid human tragedy. I will continue my efforts and contacts. We must avoid the worst."
"Maintaining dialogue to protect the people, obtaining measures that will avoid human tragedy, putting an end to this war: this is the purpose of my commitment alongside President Zelensky and the international community. I am and will remain fully determined."
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1499461402326704128?s=20&t=8YeaUAsmeiHcGP8GA1ROYA
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1499461403798917124?s=20&t=8YeaUAsmeiHcGP8GA1ROYA
That has been obvious since the start a week ago.
I sincerely hope you are right.
It’s positioned itself well as a intermediary power between the West and the rest, and as the foreign policy vanguard within the EU.
The France/India axis is one to watch in the future.
NDAs, ffs. Any job that doesn't involve flipping burgers comes with a duty of confidentiality. I wonder why you don't know that?
007
Of course. But what if there is no agreement?
Unless his people get him first, but I’m a skeptic about that.
Went to lidl and my local wholefood store earlier this evening.
Me and one other person wearing a mask in both places.
The lass on till said she had seen almost no one all day wearing one.
And Putin will have his own, extremely loyal, bodyguard.
That made me think judiciary and you technocrats.
One chap, was doing contract exploration work (oil). Siberia. The local thugs popped into his office to ask for some money. A few hundred bucks. To start.....
He knew the world. So he went to see the local MVD (?) big cheese. Those guys were police, but with big guns. So he tells the Big Cheese, here's $50K - cash. He'd like the problem to go away. The Big Cheese nods.
That night Big Cheese gets his guys and all their toys and goes to the club house in the woods where the thugs hung out. They opened fire - use a years worth of ammunition. Club house, thugs, bar tenders. Everyone dead.
Turns out that $50K wasn't the price for getting the police on your side - more like the price of a hit on *everyone*. The oil company chap had slightly over estimated the prices.....
He left town, right quick. They say though, for years afterwards, no one would even think of asking for a bribe from that company...
I doubt the bastard would be bothered about the death, suffering and end of civilisation as we know it, but I'm not sure he could actually countenance the idea that he might have been wrong.
(On reflection, there are one or two on PB a bit like that, but they don't have nukes so we don't get to test just how far they would be prepared to go,)
Fairly confident he would be happy with a bill of rights or human rights act that had a judiciary to protect it without any technocratic class involved. EU is tangential here.
The best version of the answer I have seen is the Swiss one - every law passed can be repealed by a referendum. So the people are the Guardians.
But what if the politicians try to muck with that? Well, to repeal the referendum law would take... a referendum
The EU has agreed to grant temporary residence to Ukrainians fleeing the war, for up to three years.
EU ministers gave the plans the green light at a meeting in Brussels today.
The bloc's triggered a mechanism - that’s never been used before - to allow Ukrainian nationals and their families the right to work, education and welfare.
The EU says that those who held long-term residence or refugee status in Ukraine would also be covered - either by the directive or national rules. And that temporary workers or students, who aren't eligible, would be helped to get home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60582327
Now let's see if 'world-leading Britain' copies that.
But maybe I am giving in to hopecasting, and Putin has total control, and things will indeed get worse. As he promised Macron
I think you're right tbf.
As for the Erdington by-election, as poor a candidate as Paulette Hamilton is I'd be astonished if Labour didn't win reasonably comfortable tonight, let alone lose the seat.
⚡️Economist says Russian invasion could lead to largest wheat shortage in history.
The invasion will cause a massive supply shock and nothing can be done in the short term to prevent it, according to @ScottIrwinUI, as quoted by Bloomberg.’
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1499468025036169216?s=21
In Washington they must be at least game planning the ultimate: a first strike to take this madman out before he burns the world to hell.
You can't be too careful in my end of the Midlands.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1499479196778709019
See the long table pictures?
Big guy in doorway to left?
Always a TV crew, is there a bodygaurd there?
He isolates for his survival
US-Russia hotline set up to prevent 'military incidents' - reports
The Pentagon has set up a new hotline with Russia's ministry of defence to prevent "miscalculation, military incidents and escalation", a US official has told the news agency Reuters.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the US source said a "de-confliction line" was established on 1 March.
The US military has created hotlines with Russia in the past, including during the war in Syria.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1499474258283614213
Polish Ambassador Bartosz Cichocki sat in a 2nd-floor room lined with large windows, wearing a soccer jersey and sipping a glass scotch, full of bravado, and shrugging off the missile explosions that reverberated through the Ukrainian capital.
It may be bollocks of course. Perhaps he confidently strides the Kremlin? But he can’t be that confident, he will know assassination is a real threat
"a person or group of people employed to escort and protect an important or famous person."
Labour has called on the Tories to return money from donors with links to Russiain response to tensions over Vladimir Putin’s military buildup on the Ukrainian border.
In a joint letter, David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, called on ministers to address Russian finance flowing into the UK.
Writing to their counterparts, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, both possible contenders to succeed Boris Johnson in No 10, Lammy and Reeves said: “Donors who have made money from Russia or have alleged links to the Putin regime have given £1.93m to either the Conservative party or individual Conservative associations since Boris Johnson took power in July 2019. Will the Conservative party agree to return it?”
Wow 1.93m in three years that's about 700k per year or about 2k per Conservative MP.
Can I ask Conservative members here if they're not embarrassed that their party can be bought for such trivial amounts of money ?
Are Conservative politicians so addicted to unearned money that they're willing to damage themselves so much for so little ?
Its the political funding equivalent of a beggar looking for fag ends in the gutter.
Johnson is now “unlikely” to deploy the safeguard mechanism this side of the ballot
1/3
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/03/brexit-back-burner-ukraine-war-hits-boris-johnsons-ability-trigger/
They are willing to suffer a lot, but when desperate enough, brave enough.
Is it safer to stick with him, or to remove him?
If they conclude the latter, Putin will be removed swiftly and efficiently, like Beria. Russians are very good at coups d'etat. These are usually almost bloodless, at the point of flagrante delicto, even if executions follow afterwards.