For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Is it? I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong, but I thought that it was against the Geneva Convention to Humiliate them, (and a few other things) but I don't think presenting them to the press is not necessarily Humiliation, depending on the context.
whatever the legalities the bigger picture is how it is seen in Russia by ordinary Russians - It can only turn them against the west
This is where we might wonder if some of the Russia boycotts are a mite counter-productive. Where are Russians to get news other from the state media? Not Facebook anymore. Activists might follow the BBC's instructions for Tor but hardly the babushka on the St Petersburg omnibus.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Is it? I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong, but I thought that it was against the Geneva Convention to Humiliate them, (and a few other things) but I don't think presenting them to the press is not necessarily Humiliation, depending on the context.
whatever the legalities the bigger picture is how it is seen in Russia by ordinary Russians - It can only turn them against the west
This is where we might wonder if some of the Russia boycotts are a mite counter-productive. Where are Russians to get news other from the state media? Not Facebook anymore. Activists might follow the BBC's instructions for Tor but hardly the babushka on the St Petersburg omnibus.
I thought the Russian government were the ones who blocked FB, for that very reason? Or have I misunderstood that?
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Yes:
"prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity"
I hope they don't do this again.
Well, I quite like the argument that until Russia concedes it is waging a war there can be no Russian POWs. And secondly there's no law protecting me from being insulted in my own country in time of peace, so I can't get excited about alleged breaches of a similar right in Ukraine while civilians are being mutilated and murdered.
I do like this notion of "factual history" being bandied about. One of the things I find most interesting about aechaeology is how often it demonstrates that the "facts" of "factual history" can't quite be right...
There is a grand narrative, which is probably flawed in all sorts of ways. But it has significance because it is the story that we tell ourselves about how we came to be, and is enormously influential in every aspect of our culture. That is what kids need to learn at school. It is no good peddling a deconstructed, post modern version of history that teaches them to be uncertain and full of doubt about their country and who they are. I think that this type of approach to history is what the government are trying to tackle.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
You are right in that things are risky - my own view is Putin could easily order a tactical nuclear strike on a minor town to demonstrate he would use nuclear weapons and scare the west / force Ukraine to surrender - but bear in mind, Putin may also be concerned that ordering the use of nuclear weapons triggers a move against him.
If the reports that anti-war elements in the FSB leaked details of the assassination plot, then it’s clear there are at least some elements in the Russian security apparatus who are against the war. If there was any inkling nukes were about to be used, good chance that triggers a move against Putin.
Those would presumably be the large numbers of FSB who knew the likely reaction of Ukrainians and the world, but were either ignored, or not permitted to tell the truth to power. What is the point of the security services if you are sidelined? Either that, or they are utterly incompetent. (I don't buy that for a second. They'd have hundreds if not thousands of assets on the ground in Ukraine. They can't all be so dim or brainwashed to not see what was in plain sight).
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Is it? I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong, but I thought that it was against the Geneva Convention to Humiliate them, (and a few other things) but I don't think presenting them to the press is not necessarily Humiliation, depending on the context.
whatever the legalities the bigger picture is how it is seen in Russia by ordinary Russians - It can only turn them against the west
This is where we might wonder if some of the Russia boycotts are a mite counter-productive. Where are Russians to get news other from the state media? Not Facebook anymore. Activists might follow the BBC's instructions for Tor but hardly the babushka on the St Petersburg omnibus.
I thought the Russian government were the ones who blocked FB, for that very reason? Or have I misunderstood that?
Russia blocked Facebook but only after Facebook blocked Russian media aiui. Same with other social media platforms.
I do like this notion of "factual history" being bandied about. One of the things I find most interesting about aechaeology is how often it demonstrates that the "facts" of "factual history" can't quite be right...
I don't.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an historian with 7 articles and 2 books plus fifteen years' experience of teaching. Apparently everything I know is wrong because the opinions of a lot of fat posh Tories are that it must be.
Apparently that also makes me left wing - which is ironic because it's my disdain for the attitude of the Tory government that's driving me to Labour, not so much my political views.
I'm entirely with you. For the avoidance of doubt "I do like" was entirely sarcastic.
So... what would Putin gain from using nuclear weapons (say, tactical ones)?
I just cannot see it. He knows what the world feels about such weapons, and that his great Russia would be a pariah state for a generation. It would destroy everything he has tried to create. Virtually every country in the world would be against him and his regime. His subordinates would be offered billions by other states to take control of the country from him.
Yes, he might use them in a screw-you-all approach, but if he's mad enough to do that, he's mad enough to do it any time.
No, I cannot see it happening, and I really hope I am right. And just to help everyone sleep at night, what really worries me are other, more deniable, forms of attack...
@haynesdeborah US Secretary of State @SecBlinken met with his Ukrainian counterpart at the Ukraine-Poland border today and then he took a couple of steps into Ukraine as "a symbol of support", @DmytroKuleba says
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Is it? I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong, but I thought that it was against the Geneva Convention to Humiliate them, (and a few other things) but I don't think presenting them to the press is not necessarily Humiliation, depending on the context.
whatever the legalities the bigger picture is how it is seen in Russia by ordinary Russians - It can only turn them against the west
This is where we might wonder if some of the Russia boycotts are a mite counter-productive. Where are Russians to get news other from the state media? Not Facebook anymore. Activists might follow the BBC's instructions for Tor but hardly the babushka on the St Petersburg omnibus.
I thought the Russian government were the ones who blocked FB, for that very reason? Or have I misunderstood that?
Russia blocked Facebook but only after Facebook blocked Russian media aiui. Same with other social media platforms.
Right, that makes more sense. I assumed that it was because they didn't want people seeing real news, as otherwise they'd have to arrest the whole of Russia Today's staff...
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
I don't recall any Marxist historians during my degree in the late eighties. David Starkey was about, mind.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
Away with Thucydides, Tacitus penetrating sarcasm is all in vain. Gradgrind rules.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
You are right in that things are risky - my own view is Putin could easily order a tactical nuclear strike on a minor town to demonstrate he would use nuclear weapons and scare the west / force Ukraine to surrender - but bear in mind, Putin may also be concerned that ordering the use of nuclear weapons triggers a move against him.
If the reports that anti-war elements in the FSB leaked details of the assassination plot, then it’s clear there are at least some elements in the Russian security apparatus who are against the war. If there was any inkling nukes were about to be used, good chance that triggers a move against Putin.
The idea that the FSB are undermining Putin sounds great. But what is the source and why would they talk to the Times? It just all sounds to me like something cooked up by the security services to undermine the enemy, part of the propoganda effort. It is great and I wholeheartedly support it, but I don't believe it. When we hear from a credible defector, that will be a game changer.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
When I was active we were more interested in the cross disciplinary stuff. So cultural and social and economic and political all mixed together in one glorious hodge podge,
An update of Annales, I suppose, in that respect.
It was fun, but notwithstanding the offer I've just had to do some teaching (online) at a uni in North America I don't find I miss it. There were as many frustrations as there are in schooling, and the pay and job security were shit.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Well that's one problem.
Another problem - and here I do agree with Hyufd's comment, channeling Martin McCauley - is that it doesn't work.
As Marx himself was forced to concede in the 18e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon, which is why uniquely among his work it is such a hoot to read.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
I don't recall any Marxist historians during my degree in the late eighties. David Starkey was about, mind.
David Harvey, the Marxist geographer, was the staple of my geography degree. I found him really difficult to get to grips with to begin with, but by the end he was my favourite geographer. Why? Because no matter the topic, I knew pure what his view would be and then was just a case of getting a pithy quote or two.
@haynesdeborah US Secretary of State @SecBlinken met with his Ukrainian counterpart at the Ukraine-Poland border today and then he took a couple of steps into Ukraine as "a symbol of support", @DmytroKuleba says
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
You are right in that things are risky - my own view is Putin could easily order a tactical nuclear strike on a minor town to demonstrate he would use nuclear weapons and scare the west / force Ukraine to surrender - but bear in mind, Putin may also be concerned that ordering the use of nuclear weapons triggers a move against him.
If the reports that anti-war elements in the FSB leaked details of the assassination plot, then it’s clear there are at least some elements in the Russian security apparatus who are against the war. If there was any inkling nukes were about to be used, good chance that triggers a move against Putin.
The idea that the FSB are undermining Putin sounds great. But what is the source and why would they talk to the Times? It just all sounds to me like something cooked up by the security services to undermine the enemy, part of the propoganda effort. It is great and I wholeheartedly support it, but I don't believe it. When we hear from a credible defector, that will be a game changer.
The West seems.to have been suspiciously ahead of the game from months ago about what was coming though. That doesn't seem to have slowed down any.
(Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry called on European Union and NATO countries to "stop pumping weapons" to Ukraine -RIA
It said Moscow was particularly worried that portable anti-aerial Stinger missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists, posing a threat to airlines.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
You are right in that things are risky - my own view is Putin could easily order a tactical nuclear strike on a minor town to demonstrate he would use nuclear weapons and scare the west / force Ukraine to surrender - but bear in mind, Putin may also be concerned that ordering the use of nuclear weapons triggers a move against him.
If the reports that anti-war elements in the FSB leaked details of the assassination plot, then it’s clear there are at least some elements in the Russian security apparatus who are against the war. If there was any inkling nukes were about to be used, good chance that triggers a move against Putin.
The idea that the FSB are undermining Putin sounds great. But what is the source and why would they talk to the Times? It just all sounds to me like something cooked up by the security services to undermine the enemy, part of the propoganda effort. It is great and I wholeheartedly support it, but I don't believe it. When we hear from a credible defector, that will be a game changer.
The West seems.to have been suspiciously ahead of the game from months ago about what was coming though. That doesn't seem to have slowed down any.
The story might be a planted one so that Putin starts mistrusting his intelligence experts. However, as you say, we have evidently had some very good intel on Russian intentions from somewhere. The Russians will know this, and be asking where we are getting it from.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
I don't recall any Marxist historians during my degree in the late eighties. David Starkey was about, mind.
David Harvey, the Marxist geographer, was the staple of my geography degree. I found him really difficult to get to grips with to begin with, but by the end he was my favourite geographer. Why? Because no matter the topic, I knew pure what his view would be and then was just a case of getting a pithy quote or two.
Our resident Marxist at Aber, or rather one of two, was much the same. He said, 'learn what people's views are, and then you allow for them.'
He was my favourite lecturer too. Although that may have been because he always bought us drinks when he came out with the postgrads...which he did pretty much every week.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
(Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry called on European Union and NATO countries to "stop pumping weapons" to Ukraine -RIA
It said Moscow was particularly worried that portable anti-aerial Stinger missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists, posing a threat to airlines.
Asking for a friend, the soviets are aware RAF Finningley is no longer operational right ?
Nowhere is safe in such a small island like the UK - Really does not matter if you live near a RAF base or not. all the more reason for us to not being so bellicose in this Ukraine /Russia war
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Do you think Mike ought to put a similar warning up on PB? After all, I have my doubts about all the other posters on here, apart from you and me of course, John.
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Do you think Mike ought to put a similar warning up on PB? After all, I have my doubts about all the other posters on here, apart from you and me of course, John.
And sometimes I'm not that sure about you....
That's the advantage of being @SeanT . You can trust about 50 other posters before you've started...
Asking for a friend, the soviets are aware RAF Finningley is no longer operational right ?
Nowhere is safe in such a small island like the UK - Really does not matter if you live near a RAF base or not. all the more reason for us to not being so bellicose in this Ukraine /Russia war
It's a Russia / civilisation war. And somewhat unusually given out history, we are on the side of civilisation.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
I don't recall any Marxist historians during my degree in the late eighties. David Starkey was about, mind.
Asking for a friend, the soviets are aware RAF Finningley is no longer operational right ?
Nowhere is safe in such a small island like the UK - Really does not matter if you live near a RAF base or not. all the more reason for us to not being so bellicose in this Ukraine /Russia war
It's a Russia / civilisation war. And somewhat unusually given out history, we are on the side of civilisation.
So... what would Putin gain from using nuclear weapons (say, tactical ones)?
I just cannot see it. He knows what the world feels about such weapons, and that his great Russia would be a pariah state for a generation. It would destroy everything he has tried to create. Virtually every country in the world would be against him and his regime. His subordinates would be offered billions by other states to take control of the country from him.
Yes, he might use them in a screw-you-all approach, but if he's mad enough to do that, he's mad enough to do it any time.
No, I cannot see it happening, and I really hope I am right. And just to help everyone sleep at night, what really worries me are other, more deniable, forms of attack...
Is total nuclear war REALLY that bad? There must be upsides. More parking?
In all seriousness, I wonder what the Chinese would do if they got the impression Putin was determined on a proper nuclear armageddon
They might join the west in an attempted First Strike, I suspect. Take him out
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Is it? I'm no legal expert and could well be wrong, but I thought that it was against the Geneva Convention to Humiliate them, (and a few other things) but I don't think presenting them to the press is not necessarily Humiliation, depending on the context.
whatever the legalities the bigger picture is how it is seen in Russia by ordinary Russians - It can only turn them against the west
This is where we might wonder if some of the Russia boycotts are a mite counter-productive. Where are Russians to get news other from the state media? Not Facebook anymore. Activists might follow the BBC's instructions for Tor but hardly the babushka on the St Petersburg omnibus.
I thought the Russian government were the ones who blocked FB, for that very reason? Or have I misunderstood that?
Russia blocked Facebook but only after Facebook blocked Russian media aiui. Same with other social media platforms.
Right, that makes more sense. I assumed that it was because they didn't want people seeing real news, as otherwise they'd have to arrest the whole of Russia Today's staff...
I fail to see how blocking media site by the west helps defuse this situation - The less people and ideas mix the more dangerous things become. Not sure why we asked BP to step down from Rosfelt either. Talking is good especialy at this time - common interests are better
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Interesting on the Russian dependence on rail. Reminiscent of Britain having specialist rail engineers in ww1 France (see Michael Portillo's series) and our having the French Resistance blow up railways to hinder Nazi armies during the Normandy landings.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
Personally I think if one believes themselves to have the moral high ground then 'The boot is on the other foot now, losers!' is a poor justification to reach for.
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
They were all taught and commonly discussed at my school, but that was way back when teachers were not likely to be suspended for expressing an opinion.
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
Nobody disputes he's brilliant.
But equally, nobody is (as you found) ever allowed to forget it either.
The stories of where he used to lecture his undergraduates in random languages just to show off, despite this rendering the whole exercise more pointless than a broken pencil, are the stuff of legend.
Asking for a friend, the soviets are aware RAF Finningley is no longer operational right ?
Funnily enough I had this exact conversation with an old mate in the pub a few days ago.
His view was it still was operational but not via the golf balls.
Isn't that Fylingdales?
Ye, surely that would be one of the first targets for Russia in the UK I'd have thought seeing as it the PAVE PAWS station closest to Moscow.
Nope. According to Scot Nats the ONLY target that interests the Russians is Faslane, even tho the Trident subs will be at sea. That's the imperative reason Trident must immediately be removed from Scotland, even though the Scot Nats have now sort of decided they would still like to be under a nuclear umbrella, just not a target, let the English be the target and let them pay for the umbrella Scotland will use
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
No, I opposed the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Rwanda was before my time. I argued for a harder line against Russia in Georgia and Putin would probably have not got as far as Ukraine had we been stronger then. I supported the Kurds in Syria. All of these positions are perfectly consistent stance now. It is all consistent with maintaining a rules based international system that restrains aggressive warmongers rather than emboldens them, to the detriment of all of us.
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
So... "politics shouldn't interfere with education, that's why I celebrate a Conservative government doing conservative things in schools."
Slow hand clap.
This sounds like HYUFD hasn't been inside a history department for about 40 years. When I was studying history there was only one Marxist in the department and he was considered something of a loveable relic. There was one Les Annales professor and the rest were youngish with no affiliation. Modern historians are much less ideological than their predecessors. That probably comes from all that end of history stuff in the 90s when this generation of academics were young. What the next fashion in historiography will be given the current horrors is anyone's guess
I don't recall any Marxist historians during my degree in the late eighties. David Starkey was about, mind.
So... what would Putin gain from using nuclear weapons (say, tactical ones)?
I just cannot see it. He knows what the world feels about such weapons, and that his great Russia would be a pariah state for a generation. It would destroy everything he has tried to create. Virtually every country in the world would be against him and his regime. His subordinates would be offered billions by other states to take control of the country from him.
Yes, he might use them in a screw-you-all approach, but if he's mad enough to do that, he's mad enough to do it any time.
No, I cannot see it happening, and I really hope I am right. And just to help everyone sleep at night, what really worries me are other, more deniable, forms of attack...
Is total nuclear war REALLY that bad? There must be upsides. More parking?
In all seriousness, I wonder what the Chinese would do if they got the impression Putin was determined on a proper nuclear armageddon
They might join the west in an attempted First Strike, I suspect. Take him out
I remember a dystopic novel where the Chinese tricked Soviets and Americans into a nuclear war, planning to be the only power left standing. Unfortunately both US and USSR thought they ought to nuke the Chinese for the sake of completeness...
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
Do you remember History Today with Rob Newman and David Baddiel?
A bit before my time of being interested, but that sort of idea.
Suddenly I feel very old when PBers are too young to remember History Today.
I am so old and decrepit I make you look like Emma Raducanu's younger brother. I had never heard of it, I have now watched 3 episodes on utube and it is embarrassingly shit. Have you revisited it since the 90s?
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Here is an entIrely serious question. As Russia has not formally declared war and considers what it is doing to be a police action, and the Ukrainians are fighting a defensive action without ever having formally declared war either, are the combatants covered by the Geneva Convention?
As I am not a lawyer, I'm asking because I want to know the answer.
I wondered if the Falklands War at least (where war was never formally declared) should provide precedent, but in that case Britain had a UN Resolution covering its actions, which Ukraine does not. So I'm not sure it does.
Do you mean that the UN resolution in the Falklands War meant we had to behave ourselves? And that without such a resolution potentially Ukraine isn’t under the same obligation?
You'd need an actual lawyer - but my understanding is the laws of armed conflict (Hague, Geneva etc) cover a wide range of Incidents, Police Actions, Not Wars, Really Not A War, I Can't Believe It's Not A War....
This is also why there is quite a bit about who is defined as a legitimate combatant.
This is because they were drafted back when there were lots of these Incidents, Police Actions etc.
In fact, IIRC, most of the British military contingent at the Hague Convention were Afghan veterans.
So... what would Putin gain from using nuclear weapons (say, tactical ones)?
I just cannot see it. He knows what the world feels about such weapons, and that his great Russia would be a pariah state for a generation. It would destroy everything he has tried to create. Virtually every country in the world would be against him and his regime. His subordinates would be offered billions by other states to take control of the country from him.
Yes, he might use them in a screw-you-all approach, but if he's mad enough to do that, he's mad enough to do it any time.
No, I cannot see it happening, and I really hope I am right. And just to help everyone sleep at night, what really worries me are other, more deniable, forms of attack...
Is total nuclear war REALLY that bad? There must be upsides. More parking?
In all seriousness, I wonder what the Chinese would do if they got the impression Putin was determined on a proper nuclear armageddon
They might join the west in an attempted First Strike, I suspect. Take him out
When I was growing up and nuclear war was a background angst and 'Protect' leaflets were around, there was talk of a nuclear winter which would solve climate change.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Do you think Mike ought to put a similar warning up on PB? After all, I have my doubts about all the other posters on here, apart from you and me of course, John.
It's true that when Mélenchon performed strongly last time, Green voters were a large part of his coalition. Obviously, because how many people actually voted for Hamon? But this time Jadot is the leading candidate of the establishment left, including people who would rather exit for Hidalgo and Macron. Actually, I would rather sell Mélenchon to make the runoff while buying his victory in the runoff, if that makes sense, because he can unite the left with some Le Pen voters (maybe even some Zemmour voters - but I too think they would largely evaporate into abstention).
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Well that's one problem.
Another problem - and here I do agree with Hyufd's comment, channeling Martin McCauley - is that it doesn't work.
As Marx himself was forced to concede in the 18e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon, which is why uniquely among his work it is such a hoot to read.
A methodology for government that doesn't work? Don't let DfE find out about Marxism, then. Otherwise they'll be on it like a tramp on chips...
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
No, I opposed the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Rwanda was before my time. I argued for a harder line against Russia in Georgia and Putin would probably have not got as far as Ukraine had we been stronger then. I supported the Kurds in Syria. All of these positions are perfectly consistent stance now. It is all consistent with maintaining a rules based international system that restrains aggressive warmongers rather than emboldens them, to the detriment of all of us.
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
The Russians need to say they won from this to their own audience - That can easily be done with a bit of negotiation - Thw world does not need warmongers like you especially when the war you want is hopeless to win
(Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry called on European Union and NATO countries to "stop pumping weapons" to Ukraine -RIA
It said Moscow was particularly worried that portable anti-aerial Stinger missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists, posing a threat to airlines.
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Do you think Mike ought to put a similar warning up on PB? After all, I have my doubts about all the other posters on here, apart from you and me of course, John.
And sometimes I'm not that sure about you....
Any doubts about yourself?
Nope. Have you ever known me be wrong about anything?
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
Do you think Mike ought to put a similar warning up on PB? After all, I have my doubts about all the other posters on here, apart from you and me of course, John.
And sometimes I'm not that sure about you....
That's the advantage of being @SeanT . You can trust about 50 other posters before you've started...
The other problem is that you don't know if *you* yourself are actually a simulation being run by... @SeanT.....
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
I was however aware of a vast number of ideologically driven free marketeers in the Economics department. They were militantly committed to the facts fitting the theory. MV had bloody well better equal PT, or it hadn't been measured properly. And the market could never be wrong. Even when the outcomes were pointedly nuts. We just weren't clever enough, yet, to see why it was in reality the epitome of good sense. As others have noted. It was, however, a piece of absolute piss to predict what they thought about any topic in advance. Exactly like Marxists. I switched to Government.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Well that's one problem.
Another problem - and here I do agree with Hyufd's comment, channeling Martin McCauley - is that it doesn't work.
As Marx himself was forced to concede in the 18e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon, which is why uniquely among his work it is such a hoot to read.
A methodology for government that doesn't work? Don't let DfE find out about Marxism, then. Otherwise they'll be on it like a tramp on chips...
They've been there since the 70s already.
That's one reason why Tory activists believe the Teaching profession is riddled with Marxists stuck in 1895. We're not, but the DfE is.
Asking for a friend, the soviets are aware RAF Finningley is no longer operational right ?
Funnily enough I had this exact conversation with an old mate in the pub a few days ago.
His view was it still was operational but not via the golf balls.
Isn't that Fylingdales?
Ye, surely that would be one of the first targets for Russia in the UK I'd have thought seeing as it the PAVE PAWS station closest to Moscow.
Nope. According to Scot Nats the ONLY target that interests the Russians is Faslane, even tho the Trident subs will be at sea. That's the imperative reason Trident must immediately be removed from Scotland, even though the Scot Nats have now sort of decided they would still like to be under a nuclear umbrella, just not a target, let the English be the target and let them pay for the umbrella Scotland will use
That's what I don't really understand about nuclear targets; if you're trying to hit Faslane or Murmansk, it's already too late.
Back when it was a big ideological battle I can imagine making a list of cultural targets. But now? What does Putin actually hate about the UK?
An ironic nuke on Salisbury? Would we hit Sochi just to piss the oligarchs off?
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
From a purely pragmatic view a nuclear war wouldnt actually for our species be a bad thing
1) pretty sure the human race would survive 2) It would solve the over population of the earth 3) Nuclear winter would offeset global warming
On a personal level do I want it? No On a humanitarian level do I want it? No From a purely utilitarian point of view would it be the end of things and not solve problems ? No
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
Ferguson was on a podcast someone linked to the other week. He hates Boris and thought that Partygate would finish him off. I thought Boris would survive Partygate so does that mean I'm cleverer than Ferguson?
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
Bloody hell, mate, I can absolutely promise you nobody you'd want to know felt like that about Iraq. A truly disgusting episode which felt disgusting at the time to pretty much everybody across the political spectrum.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Who was that chap who gave the daily briefing for the UK in the Falklands War? Most dolorous chap in the history of man. Always made the announcements of casualties first, then any successes.....
I was just a kid, but I remember him as staggeringly depressing.
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
Bloody hell, mate, I can absolutely promise you nobody you'd want to know felt like that about Iraq. A truly disgusting episode which felt disgusting at the time to pretty much everybody across the political spectrum.
I was assuming s/he meant that because it shattered the unity of the West, they didn't know what that had felt like.
A new 20 minutes Wendover video on failed Russian logistics. I cannot help smiling at the warning:- Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Given the law passed in Russia and the BBC are GTFO of the country, I’m not sure Russia deserves a fair hearing from the BBC.
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
Ferguson was on a podcast someone linked to the other week. He hates Boris and thought that Partygate would finish him off. I thought Boris would survive Partygate so does that mean I'm cleverer than Ferguson?
And me, because I thought coming on top of the disaster in North Shropshire that he was dead.
He still is, from the neck up, but his career lives. It's like the Zombie Apocalypse only worse, as we could do something about that.
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
Bloody hell, mate, I can absolutely promise you nobody you'd want to know felt like that about Iraq. A truly disgusting episode which felt disgusting at the time to pretty much everybody across the political spectrum.
Ah shit. I meant that Iraq ruined our sense of self-confidence.
Comments
What is the point of the security services if you are sidelined?
Either that, or they are utterly incompetent. (I don't buy that for a second. They'd have hundreds if not thousands of assets on the ground in Ukraine. They can't all be so dim or brainwashed to not see what was in plain sight).
Fair play to @HYUFD for liking that post. At least he clearly has a sense of humour.
I just cannot see it. He knows what the world feels about such weapons, and that his great Russia would be a pariah state for a generation. It would destroy everything he has tried to create. Virtually every country in the world would be against him and his regime. His subordinates would be offered billions by other states to take control of the country from him.
Yes, he might use them in a screw-you-all approach, but if he's mad enough to do that, he's mad enough to do it any time.
No, I cannot see it happening, and I really hope I am right. And just to help everyone sleep at night, what really worries me are other, more deniable, forms of attack...
US Secretary of State @SecBlinken met with his Ukrainian counterpart at the Ukraine-Poland border today and then he took a couple of steps into Ukraine as "a symbol of support", @DmytroKuleba says
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1500190063552077833
David Starkey was about, mind.
Away with Thucydides, Tacitus penetrating sarcasm is all in vain. Gradgrind rules.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
May be just a Scotiish fatalist thing rather than an impending Armageddon one.
Please keep in mind that this comments section is very likely to have disinformation actors/trolls due to the nature of this conflict. It's likely not representative of actual opinions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
An update of Annales, I suppose, in that respect.
It was fun, but notwithstanding the offer I've just had to do some teaching (online) at a uni in North America I don't find I miss it. There were as many frustrations as there are in schooling, and the pay and job security were shit.
Another problem - and here I do agree with Hyufd's comment, channeling Martin McCauley - is that it doesn't work.
As Marx himself was forced to concede in the 18e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon, which is why uniquely among his work it is such a hoot to read.
It's easy to do if you know it well enough.
My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch).
But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest.
He got a first. In the days when precious few did.
Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
That doesn't seem to have slowed down any.
Russian twats
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500193796469972996
He was my favourite lecturer too. Although that may have been because he always bought us drinks when he came out with the postgrads...which he did pretty much every week.
Redistribution in practice!
If only because there aren't any now...
And sometimes I'm not that sure about you....
His view was it still was operational but not via the golf balls.
It is, however, a widespread consensus...
Check in about 13 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiUqOSYNk9c
In all seriousness, I wonder what the Chinese would do if they got the impression Putin was determined on a proper nuclear armageddon
They might join the west in an attempted First Strike, I suspect. Take him out
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
It's an 'Are we the baddies?' moment.
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
But equally, nobody is (as you found) ever allowed to forget it either.
The stories of where he used to lecture his undergraduates in random languages just to show off, despite this rendering the whole exercise more pointless than a broken pencil, are the stuff of legend.
But it doesn't make him altogether popular...
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
I don't have to believe in something to believe it is important. Communism and religion.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
This is also why there is quite a bit about who is defined as a legitimate combatant.
This is because they were drafted back when there were lots of these Incidents, Police Actions etc.
In fact, IIRC, most of the British military contingent at the Hague Convention were Afghan veterans.
'There must be upsides. More parking?'
You live in the Borough of Camden, don't you.
How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
MV had bloody well better equal PT, or it hadn't been measured properly.
And the market could never be wrong. Even when the outcomes were pointedly nuts.
We just weren't clever enough, yet, to see why it was in reality the epitome of good sense.
As others have noted. It was, however, a piece of absolute piss to predict what they thought about any topic in advance. Exactly like Marxists.
I switched to Government.
https://twitter.com/MonetaristMaia/status/1500064902437875713/photo/1
That's one reason why Tory activists believe the Teaching profession is riddled with Marxists stuck in 1895. We're not, but the DfE is.
Back when it was a big ideological battle I can imagine making a list of cultural targets. But now? What does Putin actually hate about the UK?
An ironic nuke on Salisbury? Would we hit Sochi just to piss the oligarchs off?
1) pretty sure the human race would survive
2) It would solve the over population of the earth
3) Nuclear winter would offeset global warming
On a personal level do I want it? No
On a humanitarian level do I want it? No
From a purely utilitarian point of view would it be the end of things and not solve problems ? No
I was just a kid, but I remember him as staggeringly depressing.
He still is, from the neck up, but his career lives. It's like the Zombie Apocalypse only worse, as we could do something about that.