Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
People are fretting about a physical nuclear war while ignoring the effective FINANCIAL nuclear war the West has started - I’m not talking about a headcount of low level apparatchiks frozen out of the EU, but crippling The Russian Central bank and negating the usefulness of Russia’s reserves. The UK has also started a serious commercial war on Russian shipping. Felixstowe is closed to Russian shipping. Rotterdam is not, yet.
An open question whether Russian exports would make it into the country now, even if there was no official embargo. A non-Russian registered transport ship arrived to deliver Russian LNG at a terminal in Kent (yesterday, I believe,) but was foiled by the port workers. They refused to accept the cargo.
One of the biggest problems with this is that we let Putin dictate terms. He decided what would constitute escalation: made the threats and we didn't counter. Now we are running scared of him.
Economic sanctions etc. may in the long, or even medium, term have a powerful effect. But right now they are not halting Putin's pulverisation of Ukraine.
So as I say, we let Putin set the terms and then we let him do it. Putin has got his way. And a significant number of people are, basically, prepared to let him do it as the price worth paying for not 'risking' nuclear warhead detonation.
I hate seeing this happen to Ukraine and Ukrainians. I hate it with a passion. And I really don't like this attitude that we are letting him do it so as long as he doesn't bomb us.
But as few agree, maybe it's a good job I'm not in a position of power then to stand up to him.
It's a view, and I'd love it to be true. But who is Trent Telenko and why should I place any value in his judgement? He's a retired US Civil servant who can't spell 'ladies'.
Still, if he turn's out to be right, kudo's to him! ;-)
As a distinctly non-expert, it does make some sense. A well-organised army would be able to mitigate and work around such problems, allowing them to keep those vehicles laagered up indefinitely (though 'laager' probably isn't the right term). But it requires organisation and resupply; two things the Russian military does not appear too good at currently. Just resupplying those vehicles with fuel is a significant logistical task, especially if through contested territory. Then there's food, ammunition, and everything else an column requires.
So, it might just be hopeful thinking, but it could well be true. Once the war is over, it'll be fascinating to read the truth about this column.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. Russia's weapons have shown themselves no match for the West's. Who would buy a Russian fighter plane or helicopter, given they are being destroyed by citizens wielding the very lowest tech stuff from Raytheon?
Russia is supposed to have some of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world. Their S400 missile system is $300m a pop, and they've blanketed their parts of Ukraine with it. It is supposed to be able to destroy fighters, bombers, drones and even stealthy aircraft.
A week in, they're out of missiles, and the Ukrainian airforce is intact, and its drones still fly. The S400, used for the first time in anger in Ukraine, is one of the most expensive duds in history. It's meant to take out enemy aircraft 150 miles away... yet I don't think it's managed a single kill.
It gets worse. Russia's armor and APCs have been hammered. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed.
Only the Russian artillery has proven any worth. And that's technology that is eighty years old, and which would be in terrible trouble if the Ukrainians had more than a few dozen Turkish drones.
Putin can't act with inpunity because the best parts of his armed forces have already been destroyed. Yes, he'll probably manage to hold Ukraine up to the Dnieper. But Lviv looks a lot safer than it did. Simply, Russian supply chains are already a disaster, and moving 300 miles West through hostile country with few roads (while garrisoning half a dozen rebellious cities) is likely to be far too much for the Russian army.
Ukraine (and the Ukrainian people) have paid a terrible price.
But the people of Poland will be breathing a lot easier, having seen the utter failures of the Russian army in the Ukraine.
I hope this is correct, but there is a lot of other analysis that indicates the Russian military had a bad start and are now getting things together. We are only 10 days in to the war. In case anyone missed it, the unherd interview a few days ago with Justin Bronk was terrifying.
I am sure the Russian army is adapting and improving. But that doesn't change the fact that their weapons have been exposed as painfully inferior to those produced in the UK, the US, France and Turkey.
And Russia will have burnt through a lot of ammunition and other consumables. Given sanctions, their ability to replenish will be rather constrained.
It does seem as if the Ukrainians have retaken the highway from Kyiv to the West, and onto Lviv, cutting off the advanced Russian forces to the south. They are going to deplete their supplies quickly.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What can we do that doesn't risk starting a nuclear war?
With Putin in charge, anything we do might risk starting a nuclear war - or at least the threat of one. He'll take anything as an excuse, if the threat gets him what he wants. As he has done already.
But we have to take that risk and stand up to him.
Yes it's a huge risk but if we don't, we see civilisation and the rule of law crushed in western Europe.
Banks are more effective than tanks.
I'd love to see you stand in front of Zelensky and the people of Ukraine and utter that balderdash.
It is economic collapse in Russia that will stop this war.
Sanctions have never collapsed a country and I don't believe that they will stop Putin pulverising Ukraine. Longer term, they will of course have a huge impact although he is already getting around some of them.
Economic warfare is a key war winning strategy. Less spectacular than tanks but more effective.
People are fretting about a physical nuclear war while ignoring the effective FINANCIAL nuclear war the West has started - I’m not talking about a headcount of low level apparatchiks frozen out of the EU, but crippling The Russian Central bank and negating the usefulness of Russia’s reserves. The UK has also started a serious commercial war on Russian shipping. Felixstowe is closed to Russian shipping. Rotterdam is not, yet.
What on earth is a 'FINANCIAL nuclear war'?
Does it involve the risk of annihilating human civilisation and all those we love?
People should be paying far more attention to what is going on in Finland. The president travelled to the US yesterday and there is a meeting between Finland and Sweden today. It is not clear what has been discussed about these countries joining NATO. Will the US really want this, given that it increases the likelihood of conflict? But Finland joining NATO is going to be intolerable to Putin. A 1300km land border with NATO ? It is only going to be seen as an extreme provocation.
What are Finland meant to do though? If they don't join NATO then what are their choices? Putin has said that he views Finland as being part of his Greater Russia. Do we leave a defiant Finland to a Ukraine style pulverisation because we are scared of nuclear war? Or can we tolerate a Finnish government sympathetic to Russia within the EU, potentially with Russian military bases in Finland? If they are shunned by NATO, what other options do they have?
If Putin didn’t want a long land border with NATO, he shouldn’t have claimed Ukraine, with it’s 500km border with Poland and others with Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.
In his mind Ukraine will become a 'buffer state', but actually we know the real goal is to roll back NATO further. It is a pure power play, and we have continually revealed our tendency to retreat, and our unwillingness to engage.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. R
.
You're altering my language and the meaning. I didn't say Putin came out stronger. I said Putin has won.
And I think you are 'deluded' if you think otherwise. The Russian forces are slowly crushing Ukraine. Pulverising the people, destroying the country.
Do you really think Putin gives a flying fig if all that's left of Ukraine is rubble? Or if he loses 4000 tanks and 40,000 personnel in the process?
All he cares about is that he has annihilated the country of Ukraine. Which he has.
Putin got what he wanted. And we let him get away with it.
He wanted Russia ... to be feared
Which he has certainly achieved. The west has cowered. Even right wingers on here are scared of him.
Are you on crack?
If we don't stand up to Putin now then there is no civilisation left worth defending.
Are you trolling?
I just think it's awful the way we in the west are almost visibly thinking that it's okay because if we leave Ukraine to be crushed we ourselves will be safe.
What kind of moral fibre is that?
I accept that the alternative is a hell of a risk but if we don't ... what are we, really?
I don’t think you’re trolling. I do think you’re completely wrong.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
People should be paying far more attention to what is going on in Finland. The president travelled to the US yesterday and there is a meeting between Finland and Sweden today. It is not clear what has been discussed about these countries joining NATO. Will the US really want this, given that it increases the likelihood of conflict? But Finland joining NATO is going to be intolerable to Putin. A 1300km land border with NATO ? It is only going to be seen as an extreme provocation.
What are Finland meant to do though? If they don't join NATO then what are their choices? Putin has said that he views Finland as being part of his Greater Russia. Do we leave a defiant Finland to a Ukraine style pulverisation because we are scared of nuclear war? Or can we tolerate a Finnish government sympathetic to Russia within the EU, potentially with Russian military bases in Finland? If they are shunned by NATO, what other options do they have?
If Putin didn’t want a long land border with NATO, he shouldn’t have claimed Ukraine, with it’s 500km border with Poland and others with Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.
In his mind Ukraine will become a 'buffer state', but actually we know the real goal is to roll back NATO further. It is a pure power play, and we have continually revealed our tendency to retreat, and our unwillingness to engage.
Ukraine *was* a “buffer state”, but it won’t be if Putin occupies it.
Freedland: Ukrainians have acquired a new place in the global imagination, as the embodiment of the spirit of national independence. Already their collective defiance and bravery in the face of a terrifying menace is the material of myth – ballet dancers grabbing rifles, data scientists digging trenches – that will be woven into a national story Ukrainians will tell themselves for centuries… Count that as just the first of many ways in which Putin’s mission has already defeated itself.
Berlin’s break from nearly eight decades of postwar restraint is perhaps the most concrete example of a phenomenon visible throughout Europe and across the Atlantic. After many years spent contemplating its own decline and decay, the west has rediscovered something like pride and purpose.
The same goes for the European Union…Putin has jogged our memories that the EU was founded out of the conviction that the only future for a continent that had been at the centre of two world wars in 30 years was to come together: to share sovereignty rather than to kill for it. How shaming to think that the British contribution to this noble postwar ideal was to abandon it.
This war is…the whim of one, possibly crazed, man. For all the hours spent and ink spilled analysing the geopolitics of Russia and its region, what it comes down to is Putin’s yearning for power and for a place in history, to be remembered alongside Peter the Great. Because of one individual and his strange psychological need, a million people are already refugees and whole cities are smouldering ruins.
In an unheroic age, [Zelenskiy] has become a global hero and, with Putin apparently eager to play his part as a cartoonishly evil villain, that has lent this conflict a simplicity that will easily be dismissed as simplistic, but has great power all the same.
I've rather lost track of HMG's latest obfuscation and double-speak about allowing Ukrainian refugees into the UK.
Have we made a serious offer to allow refugees with no previous UK connection in yet? I know lots of people who would be willing to take one or two refugees in.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Ukraine continues to voice frustration at lack of anti-aircraft support from West. They also say German weaponry arrived rusty and in non-usable condition. “We believe it was direct sabotage of political decision and must be investigated,” says CDS, a think tank connected w MoD https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1499991645298774020
Not just the Russians not maintaining their kit in working order. Germany too needs a public inquiry.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Check your dates. The Thatcher government was cutting defence years before Gorbachev, the fall of the Berlin Wall or however else you want to mark the end of the cold war.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
You know the microchip shortage that economists have been fretting about for 12-18 months? Imagine that times one hundred. And file under: “reasons the Russian economy is in trouble”. https://twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1500015916750356485
and for that reason it can't sustain a long-drawn-out war or a subsequent occupation with insurgent attacks.
It’s like a hostage situation controlled by a lone, possibly crazy, gunman with a massive suicide vest. He has made demands and is killing hostages one at a time. He is on the ground floor of a tower block, with 1000 residents trapped above him.
As some suggest, we could go in heroically, guns blazing and accept the risk he might blow everyone up. Alternatively we could wait for sanctions to starve him out, but that is painful as he keeps killing hostages. It’s a long shot to assume the gunman might change his mind. He has an accomplice, the best bet is that they end it.
If your analogy is accurate which it seems to be the solution must be for NATO or similar to take on the Russian forces immediately using conventional weapons. There's no evidence that Russia would retaliate with nuclear weapons and in fact it's unlikely as the first strike would be on it's own doorstep.
The alternative is that we're going to live in a very unstable world where copycat invasions become commonplace and the rush to get nuclear weapons will become frenetic.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. R
.
You're altering my language and the meaning. I didn't say Putin came out stronger. I said Putin has won.
And I think you are 'deluded' if you think otherwise. The Russian forces are slowly crushing Ukraine. Pulverising the people, destroying the country.
Do you really think Putin gives a flying fig if all that's left of Ukraine is rubble? Or if he loses 4000 tanks and 40,000 personnel in the process?
All he cares about is that he has annihilated the country of Ukraine. Which he has.
Putin got what he wanted. And we let him get away with it.
He wanted Russia ... to be feared
Which he has certainly achieved. The west has cowered. Even right wingers on here are scared of him.
Are you on crack?
certainly cracked. Sandwich short of a picnic at best.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Check your dates. The Thatcher government was cutting defence years before Gorbachev, the fall of the Berlin Wall or however else you want to mark the end of the cold war.
Doesn't that depend on how you measure it, either as part of GDP or dollar-equivalent?
The fact remains: her time as PM gave a peace dividend that was maintained throughout Major's time at No. 10. And then came Blair. Afghanistan was a justifiable war IMO, given 9/11, albeit incompetently carried out. Iraq... less so.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
FPTP in all its 'democratic' glory, eh?
Absolutely. FPTP is a fucking disgrace.
We'll be back on to AV any second...
Straight from Scottish sub-samples to AV. All we need now is pineapple and Die Hard and we may have the full set.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
What are you wittering on about?
The BPC rules say the data tables and methodology note(s) must be published within two working days after the poll first enters the public domain.
The poll entered the public domain on Thursday as per the below tweet and since it is Saturday morning I think they've met the BPC rules.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
The mistake was to think that it was all about economics.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" affected me deeply. After reading it, I could not understand how anyone with a brain could support the Russian Communist state.
Incidentally, the Al Stewart song 'Roads to Moscow', which I have quoted on here and love, might be based on the story. A beautiful song about horrid events.
"And far away behind their lines the partisans are stirring in the forest Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise You'll never know, you'll never know which way to turn, which way to look you'll never see us As we're stealing through the blackness of the night You'll never know, you'll never hear us"
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
Well yes. But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history. Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk. Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables
(Snip)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
Though I think there would be a fair amount of tactical voting amongst the Unionists. A good sub-sample for Labour though. Starmer refreshes the bits that Corbynism failed to reach.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
The mistake was to think that it was all about economics.
I think the mistake was to see it as an event and not a process. It was the triumph of the West. Victory. Final victory. No more to do.
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
If accurate (it's a subsample) this is presumably tactical unwind. What that does is put Labour back in contention for a chunk of seats, 2017 style, but further advance is needed to achieve that.
Ruble opening at 122/$, only another 13% lost in the past 24 hours.
Was 76/$ a fortnight ago, so everything imported is doing to be double the price - if they can find anyone who wants to sell to them?
On that topic, Samsung and Panasonic would appear to be amongst the latest major corporations in the democratic world to have ceased shipments to Russia. There'll doubtless be plenty of smuggled goodies still to be enjoyed by the elite in Russia, but the middle class (or that portion of it that hasn't managed to run away) is going to be living in a recreation of the Soviet era circa 1950 before very long.
Black market goods at black market exchange rates. Only an oligarch is going to be able to afford a new telly now.
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
@patrickwintour It is a Russian practice to bomb towns to bits, pause, permit some citizens to leave their life long homes and then add the word “humanitarian” to this brutality. There is nothing humanitarian about these corridors. They are an integral part of the commission of a war crime.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
If accurate (it's a subsample) this is presumably tactical unwind. What that does is put Labour back in contention for a chunk of seats, 2017 style, but further advance is needed to achieve that.
Indeed. You need to go second before you can think about first place. Doesn't make a Westminster.Labour government imminent, mind.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
Well yes. But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history. Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk. Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
I think that a bit pessimistic. Russia certainly has a long history of despotism, but in a globalised world that is harder and harder to sustain. Young Russians, particularly in urban areas do know of other possibilities. They have travelled either physically or virtually much more.
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
Well yes. But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history. Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk. Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
Quite. The best we can hope for from that lot is that they end up with a non-expansionist psychotic despot who's content with reigning over the world's largest country and brutalizing the population, rather than an expansionist psychotic despot who wants to beat up all the neighbours as well.
Savanta ComRes have finally published their detailed tables (how they are not kicked out of the BPC for persistent breach of the rules escapes me).
It transpires that it was a fantastic poll for Labour, especially Scottish Labour.
England:
Lab 45% Con 38% LD 9% Grn 3% Ref 3%
Scotland:
SNP 44% Lab 28% Con 17% LD 10% Grn 2% Ref -
Wales:
Lab 42% Con 23% PC 16% LD 10% Ref 5% Grn 3%
(Savanta ComRes; 25-29 February; 2,208)
But, rather oddly, if you pump those Scottish numbers into Baxter, it is not Scottish Labour who are the big winners, but rather the Tories and Lib Dems who lose big time:
SNP 56 seats (+8) Lab 1 seat (nc) Con 0 seats (-6) LD 0 seats (-2)
(New boundaries: only 57 seats.)
Ummm:
The SNP got 45.0% in 2019 and the LDs 9.5%.
The boundaries of Orkney & Shetland have not changed and the LDs were 12 points ahead of the SNP there.
So... it's a tiny swing to the LDs from the SNP. So why would the LDs be on zero seats on that poll? They should still hold O&S.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
The mistake was to think that it was all about economics.
I think the mistake was to see it as an event and not a process. It was the triumph of the West. Victory. Final victory. No more to do.
John Gray's book false dawn from 1997 (?) is a brilliant analysis of why this type of thinking was wrong. He could see at the time what was to come, when the west were seemingly basking in the glory of the end of history.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
Well yes. But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history. Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk. Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
I think that a bit pessimistic. Russia certainly has a long history of despotism, but in a globalised world that is harder and harder to sustain. Young Russians, particularly in urban areas do know of other possibilities. They have travelled either physically or virtually much more.
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
It might. But it equally.might not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe Putin isn't the sole problem. Just as an autocratic Tsar wasn't, nor Lenin, nor Stalin, nor the Communist regime as a whole. Young, urban, well-travelled Russians are in a tiny minority.
BBC shows it is not to be trusted with big numbers:
Is such a snide post really necessary?
Ferfuxsake, snide is pb currency. But ee are talking the BBC, that paragon of accuracy. You can't defend them getting something horribly wrong as getting a thousand and a million mixed up.
Or perhaps Gary Lineker is only on a thousand pounds a year?
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. Russia's weapons have shown themselves no match for the West's. Who would buy a Russian fighter plane or helicopter, given they are being destroyed by citizens wielding the very lowest tech stuff from Raytheon?
Russia is supposed to have some of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world. Their S400 missile system is $300m a pop, and they've blanketed their parts of Ukraine with it. It is supposed to be able to destroy fighters, bombers, drones and even stealthy aircraft.
A week in, they're out of missiles, and the Ukrainian airforce is intact, and its drones still fly. The S400, used for the first time in anger in Ukraine, is one of the most expensive duds in history. It's meant to take out enemy aircraft 150 miles away... yet I don't think it's managed a single kill.
It gets worse. Russia's armor and APCs have been hammered. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed.
Only the Russian artillery has proven any worth. And that's technology that is eighty years old, and which would be in terrible trouble if the Ukrainians had more than a few dozen Turkish drones.
Putin can't act with inpunity because the best parts of his armed forces have already been destroyed. Yes, he'll probably manage to hold Ukraine up to the Dnieper. But Lviv looks a lot safer than it did. Simply, Russian supply chains are already a disaster, and moving 300 miles West through hostile country with few roads (while garrisoning half a dozen rebellious cities) is likely to be far too much for the Russian army.
Ukraine (and the Ukrainian people) have paid a terrible price.
But the people of Poland will be breathing a lot easier, having seen the utter failures of the Russian army in the Ukraine.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, at all, and got into a conventional war with NATO then we'd make mincemeat of them very quickly.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
Well yes. But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history. Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk. Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
I think that a bit pessimistic. Russia certainly has a long history of despotism, but in a globalised world that is harder and harder to sustain. Young Russians, particularly in urban areas do know of other possibilities. They have travelled either physically or virtually much more.
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
As I've said passim, the greatest tragedy about modern Russia is that it has almost everything it needs to be a great power and a good player on the world stage. It has vast mineral resources; a vast land area; a large, well-educated population; a massive industrial base.
What lets it down is its leadership. Instead of doing the hard thing and raising Russia up, all Putin does is try to bring every other country down to his level. And Russia itself is the first to descend.
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
I think we can confidently file that prediction next to a flying saucer from Proxima Centauri landing in Tennessee, and Elvis emerging from it down the landing ramp.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
When you ex-wife comes out to defend you saying "We must not put Gerd on par with Hitler" then you know that you are down to your last stand. #Schröder
Ruble opening at 122/$, only another 13% lost in the past 24 hours.
Was 76/$ a fortnight ago, so everything imported is doing to be double the price - if they can find anyone who wants to sell to them?
On that topic, Samsung and Panasonic would appear to be amongst the latest major corporations in the democratic world to have ceased shipments to Russia. There'll doubtless be plenty of smuggled goodies still to be enjoyed by the elite in Russia, but the middle class (or that portion of it that hasn't managed to run away) is going to be living in a recreation of the Soviet era circa 1950 before very long.
Black market goods at black market exchange rates. Only an oligarch is going to be able to afford a new telly now.
JP Morgan warning that inflation will decimate middle class life savings in RU.
Can Putin survive that? I posted last night that Russians are very stoical, but who knows in the modern era?
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
A more gradual transition to a post communist world order may not have been such a bad move, looking back.
When evil regimes fall, they tend to fall catastrophically fast. People wanted freedom, and the USSR no longer had the power to stop them getting power. I'd personally argue the fall of the USSR has been of massive benefit to the world.
I've read the Gulag Archipelago, and it is hard to disagree. But it feels today like the pathology of the Soviet Union was merely recreated in Putin's Russia. Perhaps the cold war never really ended, and won't until the fall of the current Russian regime.
"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" affected me deeply. After reading it, I could not understand how anyone with a brain could support the Russian Communist state.
Incidentally, the Al Stewart song 'Roads to Moscow', which I have quoted on here and love, might be based on the story. A beautiful song about horrid events.
"And far away behind their lines the partisans are stirring in the forest Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise You'll never know, you'll never know which way to turn, which way to look you'll never see us As we're stealing through the blackness of the night You'll never know, you'll never hear us"
In the first handful of LPs I ever bought. Any album that has a song about Warren Harding should be owned by all pb-ers....
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
Are people in the west ready to accept a democracy which is racist and homophobic? I'm not sure.
You may want to look at how Amnesty International dropped Alexey Navalny's status as a prisoner of conscience, because of comments be made in 2007 that could be regarded as 'advocacy of hatred'. The decision was eventually reversed, but many tensions between Russia and the west can be explained by the idea that the west is not really interested in spreading democracy, but a specific set of values and beliefs which are alien to Russian cultural traditions. Putin has very successfully exploited this tension, to consolidate the power of his own regime.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Also up to his neck killing women and children in Yemen
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
I think we can confidently file that prediction next to a flying saucer from Proxima Centauri landing in Tennessee, and Elvis emerging from it down the landing ramp.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Most unsporting to pour cold water on a chap in the middle of a (mystic) rose tinted, nostalgic hand shandy.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Why do the people who think others are a bit dim if they will buy a bridge, always have a spare bridge they are trying to get rid of in the first place?
Ruble opening at 122/$, only another 13% lost in the past 24 hours.
Was 76/$ a fortnight ago, so everything imported is doing to be double the price - if they can find anyone who wants to sell to them?
On that topic, Samsung and Panasonic would appear to be amongst the latest major corporations in the democratic world to have ceased shipments to Russia. There'll doubtless be plenty of smuggled goodies still to be enjoyed by the elite in Russia, but the middle class (or that portion of it that hasn't managed to run away) is going to be living in a recreation of the Soviet era circa 1950 before very long.
Black market goods at black market exchange rates. Only an oligarch is going to be able to afford a new telly now.
JP Morgan warning that inflation will decimate middle class life savings in RU.
Can Putin survive that? I posted last night that Russians are very stoical, but who knows in the modern era?
Yes he can. The suffering of the mass of ordinary people is irrelevant to Putin. He'll be just fine so long as his government officials, security services and the professional army are kept in a reasonable degree of comfort. See also: North Korea. Any ordinary prole who defies him can be sent to a gulag or shot in the streets.
Are people in the west ready to accept a democracy which is racist and homophobic? I'm not sure.
You may want to look at how Amnesty International dropped Alexey Navalny's status as a prisoner of conscience, because of comments be made in 2007 that could be regarded as 'advocacy of hatred'. The decision was eventually reversed, but many tensions between Russia and the west can be explained by the idea that the west is not really interested in spreading democracy, but a specific set of values and beliefs which are alien to Russian cultural traditions. Putin has very successfully exploited this tension, to consolidate the power of his own regime.
Re your first sentence. Clearly not as look at the pushback against Poland and Hungary. Nations need to not just accept democracy but also our values. Alien or not.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Why do the people who think others are a bit dim if they will buy a bridge, always have a spare bridge they are trying to get rid of in the first place?
I'd say bridges are actually one of the more useful things to buy. And one over the Tigris seems like it would be more useful than most.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. Russia's weapons have shown themselves no match for the West's. Who would buy a Russian fighter plane or helicopter, given they are being destroyed by citizens wielding the very lowest tech stuff from Raytheon?
Russia is supposed to have some of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world. Their S400 missile system is $300m a pop, and they've blanketed their parts of Ukraine with it. It is supposed to be able to destroy fighters, bombers, drones and even stealthy aircraft.
A week in, they're out of missiles, and the Ukrainian airforce is intact, and its drones still fly. The S400, used for the first time in anger in Ukraine, is one of the most expensive duds in history. It's meant to take out enemy aircraft 150 miles away... yet I don't think it's managed a single kill.
It gets worse. Russia's armor and APCs have been hammered. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed.
Only the Russian artillery has proven any worth. And that's technology that is eighty years old, and which would be in terrible trouble if the Ukrainians had more than a few dozen Turkish drones.
Putin can't act with inpunity because the best parts of his armed forces have already been destroyed. Yes, he'll probably manage to hold Ukraine up to the Dnieper. But Lviv looks a lot safer than it did. Simply, Russian supply chains are already a disaster, and moving 300 miles West through hostile country with few roads (while garrisoning half a dozen rebellious cities) is likely to be far too much for the Russian army.
Ukraine (and the Ukrainian people) have paid a terrible price.
But the people of Poland will be breathing a lot easier, having seen the utter failures of the Russian army in the Ukraine.
I hope this is correct, but there is a lot of other analysis that indicates the Russian military had a bad start and are now getting things together. We are only 10 days in to the war. In case anyone missed it, the unherd interview a few days ago with Justin Bronk was terrifying.
I thought the Bronk interview was pretty convincing, though we're all armchair generals here including the commentators (some of whom, though not Bronk, may have an interest in promoting an agenda or just getting coverage by saying something eye-catching). A strategic problem for the Russians is that they can't afford to simply bomb the cities flat if they hope to run them later (and possibly don't actually want to), so although we're seeing some horrific pictures they mostly seem to be one-offs rather than systematic destruction of civilian areas.
So if you're trying to capture cities full of people who are armed and hostile, and you rule out bombing them into submission, what do you do? Presumably what's happening in Mariupol - surround them, cut off all utilities, and then offer safe passage out. That may work with a small city, but with all eyes on Kyiv, it's not going to be easy there, perhaps impossible. Also, Putin has successfully mobilised nearly all Ukrainians behind Zelensky's leadership - at least for now.
Conversely the Ukrainians have the problem that they're on the defensive nearly everywhere (they was a report of a counteratack in the NE but I've not seen more?). They aren't getting a no-fly zone (and even if they did it wouldn't solve the ground problem) and in the long term it looks impossible to win.
Rationally, therefore, there needs to be a deal. We can all see the rough outlines of a credible deal and it's been discussed here and elsewhere. But is Putin rational? Or will the deteriorating Russian situation force him into it? And can Zelensky make a deal without losing much of his popularity? Perhaps his repeated demands for a no-fly zone which he knows is not coming can be seen in that light - when he doesn't get it, he can credibly say that in view of that, a deal was necessary.
So it's possible that we'll see some general progress towards a cease-fire soon, followed by protracted haggling - during which to answer the thread header, we will all go back to arguing about parties and Brexit and FPTP.
I've rather lost track of HMG's latest obfuscation and double-speak about allowing Ukrainian refugees into the UK.
Have we made a serious offer to allow refugees with no previous UK connection in yet? I know lots of people who would be willing to take one or two refugees in.
No. We're still blocking the forrin whilst lying about leading the world.
It would be funny if it wasn't so ill-timed and pathetic.
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
What did she do about Russia invading Afghanistan, and Vietnam invading Cambodia? Apart from arming the Taliban and Khymer Rouge? What did she do about the Soviets crushing the Solidarity movement in Poland?
Maggie lives on as the PB Tory fantasy, willing to do anything in their fevered dreams.
Thatcher was emblematic of a more powerful and confident country.
Mrs Thatcher began the decades of Tory defence cuts. She also created the European single market: another inconvenient memory.
Defence cuts caused because 'she' helped win the Cold War, averting nuclear armageddon for a few decades and winning a vast bonus from peace?
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Huh? The defence cuts started in 79. Remember that we just about held the Falklands thanks to some gung-ho operational insanity by the RAF using planes that the defence cuts were about to retire. And our navy had to delay selling various ships to be able to man the exclusion zone.
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
Are people in the west ready to accept a democracy which is racist and homophobic? I'm not sure.
You may want to look at how Amnesty International dropped Alexey Navalny's status as a prisoner of conscience, because of comments be made in 2007 that could be regarded as 'advocacy of hatred'. The decision was eventually reversed, but many tensions between Russia and the west can be explained by the idea that the west is not really interested in spreading democracy, but a specific set of values and beliefs which are alien to Russian cultural traditions. Putin has very successfully exploited this tension, to consolidate the power of his own regime.
Well. I have been thinking. Maybe Russia is too big, too disconnected? It's the problem we have with urban "woke" liberals and the Red Wall writ on an enormous scale. At least most people have been to London. And most Londoners have travelled the country. The issue of disconnect is even bigger in the US where it isn't as easy, or as common. Russia really only has two cities. The rest don't matter. A lot of Russia is several hours flight away from them. We tend to visit, meet people from, and think about that country as Moscow and St Petersburg. It really isn't. Most of it is an unimaginable, to us, distance from anywhere else. Life looks different from there.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Why do the people who think others are a bit dim if they will buy a bridge, always have a spare bridge they are trying to get rid of in the first place?
I'd say bridges are actually one of the more useful things to buy. And one over the Tigris seems like it would be more useful than most.
The whole bridge to sell you meme is based on a misunderstanding - that a dim-witted American bought the old London Bridge believing it was Tower Bridge. In fact they knew exactly what they were buying and re-assembled the bridge, or at least parts of it, as they had planned.
To those telling themselves, and each other, differently: Putin has won this. He has made the west cower from him militarily whilst he expands Greater Russia by crushing a civilised nation.
Margaret Thatcher would have stood up to him.
There are two separate issues here:
(1) Have the people of Ukraine lost? (2) Has Putin won?
The people of Ukraine are losing their lives and their homes every day.
But the idea that Putin (and Russia) have come out of this stronger is utterly deluded. Russia's weapons have shown themselves no match for the West's. Who would buy a Russian fighter plane or helicopter, given they are being destroyed by citizens wielding the very lowest tech stuff from Raytheon?
Russia is supposed to have some of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world. Their S400 missile system is $300m a pop, and they've blanketed their parts of Ukraine with it. It is supposed to be able to destroy fighters, bombers, drones and even stealthy aircraft.
A week in, they're out of missiles, and the Ukrainian airforce is intact, and its drones still fly. The S400, used for the first time in anger in Ukraine, is one of the most expensive duds in history. It's meant to take out enemy aircraft 150 miles away... yet I don't think it's managed a single kill.
It gets worse. Russia's armor and APCs have been hammered. Thousands of vehicles have been destroyed.
Only the Russian artillery has proven any worth. And that's technology that is eighty years old, and which would be in terrible trouble if the Ukrainians had more than a few dozen Turkish drones.
Putin can't act with inpunity because the best parts of his armed forces have already been destroyed. Yes, he'll probably manage to hold Ukraine up to the Dnieper. But Lviv looks a lot safer than it did. Simply, Russian supply chains are already a disaster, and moving 300 miles West through hostile country with few roads (while garrisoning half a dozen rebellious cities) is likely to be far too much for the Russian army.
Ukraine (and the Ukrainian people) have paid a terrible price.
But the people of Poland will be breathing a lot easier, having seen the utter failures of the Russian army in the Ukraine.
I hope this is correct, but there is a lot of other analysis that indicates the Russian military had a bad start and are now getting things together. We are only 10 days in to the war. In case anyone missed it, the unherd interview a few days ago with Justin Bronk was terrifying.
I thought the Bronk interview was pretty convincing, though we're all armchair generals here including the commentators (some of whom, though not Bronk, may have an interest in promoting an agenda or just getting coverage by saying something eye-catching). A strategic problem for the Russians is that they can't afford to simply bomb the cities flat if they hope to run them later (and possibly don't actually want to), so although we're seeing some horrific pictures they mostly seem to be one-offs rather than systematic destruction of civilian areas.
So if you're trying to capture cities full of people who are armed and hostile, and you rule out bombing them into submission, what do you do? Presumably what's happening in Mariupol - surround them, cut off all utilities, and then offer safe passage out. That may work with a small city, but with all eyes on Kyiv, it's not going to be easy there, perhaps impossible. Also, Putin has successfully mobilised nearly all Ukrainians behind Zelensky's leadership - at least for now.
Conversely the Ukrainians have the problem that they're on the defensive nearly everywhere (they was a report of a counteratack in the NE but I've not seen more?). They aren't getting a no-fly zone (and even if they did it wouldn't solve the ground problem) and in the long term it looks impossible to win.
Rationally, therefore, there needs to be a deal. We can all see the rough outlines of a credible deal and it's been discussed here and elsewhere. But is Putin rational? Or will the deteriorating Russian situation force him into it? And can Zelensky make a deal without losing much of his popularity? Perhaps his repeated demands for a no-fly zone which he knows is not coming can be seen in that light - when he doesn't get it, he can credibly say that in view of that, a deal was necessary.
So it's possible that we'll see some general progress towards a cease-fire soon, followed by protracted haggling - during which to answer the thread header, we will all go back to arguing about parties and Brexit and FPTP.
I would expect a deal within the next two months, not imminently but maybe end of March/early April. If that does not happen then I don't think Putin will see out 2022 in office.
On topic this war needs to end asap, sanctions have consumed my work life then my actual life, and I've not even seen The Batman yet.
I've been waiting all my life for a dark, gritty reboot of the Batman mythos. The movies have been far too light and fluffy since Adam West.
The Chris Nolan/Christian Bale Batman films were too light and fluffy?
It's a view.
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Ultimately a director will come accross with a vision of Batman so dark it is essentially staring at a black screen for 3 hours.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Why do the people who think others are a bit dim if they will buy a bridge, always have a spare bridge they are trying to get rid of in the first place?
Ruble opening at 122/$, only another 13% lost in the past 24 hours.
Was 76/$ a fortnight ago, so everything imported is doing to be double the price - if they can find anyone who wants to sell to them?
On that topic, Samsung and Panasonic would appear to be amongst the latest major corporations in the democratic world to have ceased shipments to Russia. There'll doubtless be plenty of smuggled goodies still to be enjoyed by the elite in Russia, but the middle class (or that portion of it that hasn't managed to run away) is going to be living in a recreation of the Soviet era circa 1950 before very long.
Black market goods at black market exchange rates. Only an oligarch is going to be able to afford a new telly now.
JP Morgan warning that inflation will decimate middle class life savings in RU.
Can Putin survive that? I posted last night that Russians are very stoical, but who knows in the modern era?
Yes he can. The suffering of the mass of ordinary people is irrelevant to Putin. He'll be just fine so long as his government officials, security services and the professional army are kept in a reasonable degree of comfort. See also: North Korea. Any ordinary prole who defies him can be sent to a gulag or shot in the streets.
Yes, we're kidding ourselves if we think he cannot survive great hardship in Russia. It increases his risk, but the odds would still very much be in his favour.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Why do the people who think others are a bit dim if they will buy a bridge, always have a spare bridge they are trying to get rid of in the first place?
They are mates of Boris Johnson?
No, no, no. Then they would have not a bridge, but a plan for a bridge. A plan to build a bridge, that does not actually build a bridge. But pays some of his mates quite well.
I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The Times after seeing this.
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
Johnson has been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Syria since he took over. If you think none of those PW4s hit civilians I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Deliberately targeting?
Dont bother, we all know with some it's not enough to acknowledge deep failings, equivalence must be pushed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PHREUTERS/status/1499993501785894914
Economic sanctions etc. may in the long, or even medium, term have a powerful effect. But right now they are not halting Putin's pulverisation of Ukraine.
So as I say, we let Putin set the terms and then we let him do it. Putin has got his way. And a significant number of people are, basically, prepared to let him do it as the price worth paying for not 'risking' nuclear warhead detonation.
I hate seeing this happen to Ukraine and Ukrainians. I hate it with a passion. And I really don't like this attitude that we are letting him do it so as long as he doesn't bomb us.
But as few agree, maybe it's a good job I'm not in a position of power then to stand up to him.
I'll leave it there.
So, it might just be hopeful thinking, but it could well be true. Once the war is over, it'll be fascinating to read the truth about this column.
Does it involve the risk of annihilating human civilisation and all those we love?
No? Well fine, carry on.
The Iran nuclear issue is distinctly solvable, given goodwill on both sides.
I do wonder if the Iranian regime has realised that a significant long-term trading partner and strategic ally is just going tits-up?
Berlin’s break from nearly eight decades of postwar restraint is perhaps the most concrete example of a phenomenon visible throughout Europe and across the Atlantic. After many years spent contemplating its own decline and decay, the west has rediscovered something like pride and purpose.
The same goes for the European Union…Putin has jogged our memories that the EU was founded out of the conviction that the only future for a continent that had been at the centre of two world wars in 30 years was to come together: to share sovereignty rather than to kill for it. How shaming to think that the British contribution to this noble postwar ideal was to abandon it.
This war is…the whim of one, possibly crazed, man. For all the hours spent and ink spilled analysing the geopolitics of Russia and its region, what it comes down to is Putin’s yearning for power and for a place in history, to be remembered alongside Peter the Great. Because of one individual and his strange psychological need, a million people are already refugees and whole cities are smouldering ruins.
In an unheroic age, [Zelenskiy] has become a global hero and, with Putin apparently eager to play his part as a cartoonishly evil villain, that has lent this conflict a simplicity that will easily be dismissed as simplistic, but has great power all the same.
Have we made a serious offer to allow refugees with no previous UK connection in yet? I know lots of people who would be willing to take one or two refugees in.
Would you have preferred the Cold War to continue?
Imagine that times one hundred.
And file under: “reasons the Russian economy is in trouble”.
https://twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1500015916750356485
and for that reason it can't sustain a long-drawn-out war or a subsequent occupation with insurgent attacks.
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1500017505733165058
The alternative is that we're going to live in a very unstable world where copycat invasions become commonplace and the rush to get nuclear weapons will become frenetic.
The fact remains: her time as PM gave a peace dividend that was maintained throughout Major's time at No. 10. And then came Blair. Afghanistan was a justifiable war IMO, given 9/11, albeit incompetently carried out. Iraq... less so.
https://twitter.com/andersostlund/status/1500018164603801604?
I can see the attraction of Moscow now.
The BPC rules say the data tables and methodology note(s) must be published within two working days after the poll first enters the public domain.
The poll entered the public domain on Thursday as per the below tweet and since it is Saturday morning I think they've met the BPC rules.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1499330672472862720
Looking at my emails, they published the data tables on Thursday evening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60601469
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Denisovich
Incidentally, the Al Stewart song 'Roads to Moscow', which I have quoted on here and love, might be based on the story. A beautiful song about horrid events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28DQWm5oRGs
Some of the lines echo down to today:
"And far away behind their lines the partisans are stirring in the forest
Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise
You'll never know, you'll never know which way to turn, which way to look you'll never see us
As we're stealing through the blackness of the night
You'll never know, you'll never hear us"
But the idea that Putin's fall leads to something more palatable is not really supported by Russian history.
Alexander II and Gorbachev are the only two leaders in the past 200 years (my Russian history doesn't go back further), to have seemingly genuinely held the aspiration to make things better for ordinary folk.
Which is the baseline minimum setting for Western leaders.
It's a view.
It was the triumph of the West. Victory. Final victory. No more to do.
Mr. Seal, you can't expect Mr. Eagles to understand subtlety. He still thinks salmon pink trousers are delightful.
@patrickwintour
It is a Russian practice to bomb towns to bits, pause, permit some citizens to leave their life long homes and then add the word “humanitarian” to this brutality. There is nothing humanitarian about these corridors. They are an integral part of the commission of a war crime.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1500023450458628097
Doesn't make a Westminster.Labour government imminent, mind.
When Putin falls, from the chaos may emerge a great democratic Russia.
An utter bargain at £129
The SNP got 45.0% in 2019 and the LDs 9.5%.
The boundaries of Orkney & Shetland have not changed and the LDs were 12 points ahead of the SNP there.
So... it's a tiny swing to the LDs from the SNP. So why would the LDs be on zero seats on that poll? They should still hold O&S.
But it equally.might not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe Putin isn't the sole problem.
Just as an autocratic Tsar wasn't, nor Lenin, nor Stalin, nor the Communist regime as a whole.
Young, urban, well-travelled Russians are in a tiny minority.
Or perhaps Gary Lineker is only on a thousand pounds a year?
Because I must have missed Boris Johnson invading another country and shelling civilians.
I had to wear a suit to get in to Wembley last Sunday and I deliberately chose a blue suit with yellow shirt, and blue tie.
What lets it down is its leadership. Instead of doing the hard thing and raising Russia up, all Putin does is try to bring every other country down to his level. And Russia itself is the first to descend.
My iPad screen, however...
Can Putin survive that? I posted last night that Russians are very stoical, but who knows in the modern era?
You may want to look at how Amnesty International dropped Alexey Navalny's status as a prisoner of conscience, because of comments be made in 2007 that could be regarded as 'advocacy of hatred'. The decision was eventually reversed, but many tensions between Russia and the west can be explained by the idea that the west is not really interested in spreading democracy, but a specific set of values and beliefs which are alien to Russian cultural traditions. Putin has very successfully exploited this tension, to consolidate the power of his own regime.
So if you're trying to capture cities full of people who are armed and hostile, and you rule out bombing them into submission, what do you do? Presumably what's happening in Mariupol - surround them, cut off all utilities, and then offer safe passage out. That may work with a small city, but with all eyes on Kyiv, it's not going to be easy there, perhaps impossible. Also, Putin has successfully mobilised nearly all Ukrainians behind Zelensky's leadership - at least for now.
Conversely the Ukrainians have the problem that they're on the defensive nearly everywhere (they was a report of a counteratack in the NE but I've not seen more?). They aren't getting a no-fly zone (and even if they did it wouldn't solve the ground problem) and in the long term it looks impossible to win.
Rationally, therefore, there needs to be a deal. We can all see the rough outlines of a credible deal and it's been discussed here and elsewhere. But is Putin rational? Or will the deteriorating Russian situation force him into it? And can Zelensky make a deal without losing much of his popularity? Perhaps his repeated demands for a no-fly zone which he knows is not coming can be seen in that light - when he doesn't get it, he can credibly say that in view of that, a deal was necessary.
So it's possible that we'll see some general progress towards a cease-fire soon, followed by protracted haggling - during which to answer the thread header, we will all go back to arguing about parties and Brexit and FPTP.
It would be funny if it wasn't so ill-timed and pathetic.
At least most people have been to London. And most Londoners have travelled the country.
The issue of disconnect is even bigger in the US where it isn't as easy, or as common.
Russia really only has two cities. The rest don't matter. A lot of Russia is several hours flight away from them.
We tend to visit, meet people from, and think about that country as Moscow and St Petersburg. It really isn't. Most of it is an unimaginable, to us, distance from anywhere else.
Life looks different from there.
That isn't new. Political spin and newspaper lies have been part of our landscape since the dawn of print.