It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
The designer worked at MIT for a while so presumably there's some US know-how there. [BTW, I note he is married to Erdogan's daughter]
But you are obviously correct. We clearly won't need F35s to shoot down Russians, so what exactly are they for? China? Really? The French, perhaps?
A fleet of similar drones with a bit more stealth is more than enough to hit things from the air.
I thought the Chinese had stolen the F35 plans and now had their own version.
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
Definitely, our difference is Suez. We got humbled relatively early and pivoted to acting in tandem with other nations. Russia can't even get their vassal states to join in.
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
Source?
The next question is what happens to counters to drones - unless you spend zillions on making them high altitude stealths, as the Americans are doing for some of their systems.
So far, no-one has tried drones against a complex, in-depth air defence system. That is certainly not what is happening in Ukraine....
At the end of the 19th cent, everyone thought that torpedo boats had seen off the big ships. Then those cheating cads came up with quick firing guns.....
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
It's all relative isn't it? The UK forces are good in parts but horribly unbalanced, lacking in support functions and not able to deploy a 100% capable force without significant help from the US. We have no strategic autonomy and appear to be chilled about that,
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
Yes but the only military expeditions we would conceivably fight abroad now without US and NATO or UN support are to defend Gibraltar if the Spanish invaded or the Falklands if the Argentines invaded. The UK armed forces are still bigger than those of Argentina and Spain
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
Definitely, our difference is Suez. We got humbled relatively early and pivoted to acting in tandem with other nations. Russia can't even get their vassal states to join in.
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
Source?
The next question is what happens to counters to drones - unless you spend zillions on making them high altitude stealths, as the Americans are doing for some of their systems.
So far, no-one has tried drones against a complex, in-depth air defence system. That is certainly not what is happening in Ukraine....
At the end of the 19th cent, everyone thought that torpedo boats had seen off the big ships. Then those cheating cads came up with quick firing guns.....
Naively it doesn't seem like it would be the most complex of tasks to come up with counter tech to these lower tech drones.
@jdawsey1 Trump mused to donors that we should take our F-22 planes, "put the Chinese flag on them and bomb the shit out" out of Russia. "And then we say, China did it, we didn't do, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch."
@jdawsey1 Trump mused to donors that we should take our F-22 planes, "put the Chinese flag on them and bomb the shit out" out of Russia. "And then we say, China did it, we didn't do, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch."
"An estimated 3,000 Americans have answered Ukraine's call for foreign volunteers to fight Russia's invasion, a representative from the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC told the Voice of America news service."
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power.
I can’t say this for certain (obviously), but I think this is the eventuality.
Why?
The Ru forces are poorly equipped, led, and supplied. Morale is non-existent.
The Ukrs have very high morale, are fighting on home ground with the population behind them, and seem to have enough resources for now.
These things are the components of fighting power.
And I think that once the Russian armed forces fall apart, Putin won’t be able to remain in power.
We will see over the next ten days whether I am right.
Armies that don’t recover their dead from the battlefield tend not to remain cohesive fighting forces.
Within the next ten days it will be clear whether I am right or not; not that all of the steps I outline will happen in the next ten days.”
I read that the Russians have taken a mobile crematorium with them. If I was a Russian soldier I would at least like the comfort of knowing that my comrades and officers would do their very best to recover my mortal remains and return them to my family. I think I’d lose all respect for them if I knew they were just going to fling my cadaver in a big furnace.
We should be spreading info on that mobile crematorium.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
It's pathetic, isn't it?
The Mail and Mail on Sunday have become a complete joke
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Yeah, but have you ever kissed a girl?
Mornin' all.
Mr D our young Essex friend is married, so presumably......
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
It's pathetic, isn't it?
The Mail and Mail on Sunday have become a complete joke
It’s not the Mail and the Mail on Sunday which are a complete joke, it’s their readership.
I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power.
I can’t say this for certain (obviously), but I think this is the eventuality.
Why?
The Ru forces are poorly equipped, led, and supplied. Morale is non-existent.
The Ukrs have very high morale, are fighting on home ground with the population behind them, and seem to have enough resources for now.
These things are the components of fighting power.
And I think that once the Russian armed forces fall apart, Putin won’t be able to remain in power.
We will see over the next ten days whether I am right.
Armies that don’t recover their dead from the battlefield tend not to remain cohesive fighting forces.
Within the next ten days it will be clear whether I am right or not; not that all of the steps I outline will happen in the next ten days.”
I read that the Russians have taken a mobile crematorium with them. If I was a Russian soldier I would at least like the comfort of knowing that my comrades and officers would do their very best to recover my mortal remains and return them to my family. I think I’d lose all respect for them if I knew they were just going to fling my cadaver in a big furnace.
We should be spreading info on that mobile crematorium.
Their mobile crematoria are called tanks....
269 tanks, 945 APC claimed taken out of play by the Ukrainians.
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
It's pathetic, isn't it?
The Mail and Mail on Sunday have become a complete joke
It’s not the Mail and the Mail on Sunday which are a complete joke, it’s their readership.
The bit that I found 'amusing', in a rather black way, was that our PM is 'moving to assume leadership of global efforts to end the war'. Thanks to his 'leadership' Britain can only be a bit player, not a leader!
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
It's pathetic, isn't it?
The Mail and Mail on Sunday have become a complete joke
It’s not the Mail and the Mail on Sunday which are a complete joke, it’s their readership.
The bit that I found 'amusing', in a rather black way, was that our PM is 'moving to assume leadership of global efforts to end the war'. Thanks to his 'leadership' Britain can only be a bit player, not a leader!
Some folks are not just deluded, they are wilfully deluded. They want to believe lies. I’m sure the psychology industry has a term for them. Normal folk just call them twats.
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?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Hyufd, you have an undergraduate degree from a university whose quality of teaching has been questioned by colleagues of mine whose judgement I trust.
You do not have a PhD. You have never published anything. You have never taught.
When you have those, come back to me and let me know if your views have changed.
In the meanwhile, please just understand - for once - that you are wrong. Archival research is important (speaking as somebody who's done it in several countries) but it is not quite the bedrock of history you seem to think it is. All other considerations aside, until you have studied the literature you don't know which sources to look at.
An unwavering commitment to slavishly following the line of a bunch of third rate criminals who call themselves the cabinet isn't a substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about. As you are showing here, and as you are showing so often, e.g. on lecturing Richard Tyndall on the qualifications needed to be an engineer.
I am amazed you passed on the free hit of HUYFD clearly having no fucking clue what you meant by literature review.
Absolutely mortifying for him.
He was at Warwick. We make allowances.
(If I’m honest I missed it because I only skim read his post knowing it would be (a) wrong and (b) he would never admit it so it wasn’t worth engaging with him.)
I’m more amazed by the extent of his stubbornness on this point even though he probably knows he’s wrong. Quite amusing that he used his qualifications to try and thwack Eabhal while ignoring the fact I have far higher qualifications in history than he does.
The delightful irony of somebody whose ‘facts’ are almost invariably wrong and yet are used to support his increasingly extreme opinions criticising others for pointing out history as an academic discipline doesn’t begin and end with facts is however most amusing.
I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power.
I can’t say this for certain (obviously), but I think this is the eventuality.
Why?
The Ru forces are poorly equipped, led, and supplied. Morale is non-existent.
The Ukrs have very high morale, are fighting on home ground with the population behind them, and seem to have enough resources for now.
These things are the components of fighting power.
And I think that once the Russian armed forces fall apart, Putin won’t be able to remain in power.
We will see over the next ten days whether I am right.
Armies that don’t recover their dead from the battlefield tend not to remain cohesive fighting forces.
Within the next ten days it will be clear whether I am right or not; not that all of the steps I outline will happen in the next ten days.”
I read that the Russians have taken a mobile crematorium with them. If I was a Russian soldier I would at least like the comfort of knowing that my comrades and officers would do their very best to recover my mortal remains and return them to my family. I think I’d lose all respect for them if I knew they were just going to fling my cadaver in a big furnace.
We should be spreading info on that mobile crematorium.
Their mobile crematoria are called tanks....
269 tanks, 945 APC claimed taken out of play by the Ukrainians.
Yes, but if you operate a tank it’s a bit of a given that you are going to be toasted to death in any proper war. What is more novel is an army which refuses to attempt to recover the fallen and give them a half-decent send-off.
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?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Hyufd, you have an undergraduate degree from a university whose quality of teaching has been questioned by colleagues of mine whose judgement I trust.
You do not have a PhD. You have never published anything. You have never taught.
When you have those, come back to me and let me know if your views have changed.
In the meanwhile, please just understand - for once - that you are wrong. Archival research is important (speaking as somebody who's done it in several countries) but it is not quite the bedrock of history you seem to think it is. All other considerations aside, until you have studied the literature you don't know which sources to look at.
An unwavering commitment to slavishly following the line of a bunch of third rate criminals who call themselves the cabinet isn't a substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about. As you are showing here, and as you are showing so often, e.g. on lecturing Richard Tyndall on the qualifications needed to be an engineer.
I am amazed you passed on the free hit of HUYFD clearly having no fucking clue what you meant by literature review.
Absolutely mortifying for him.
He was at Warwick. We make allowances.
(If I’m honest I only skim read his post because I knew it would be (a) wrong and (b) he would never admit it so it wasn’t worth engaging with him.)
I’m more amazed by the extent of his stubbornness on this point even though he probably knows he’s wrong. Quite amusing that he used his qualifications to try and thwack Eabhal while ignoring the fact I have far higher qualifications in history than he does.
The delightful irony of somebody whose ‘facts’ are almost invariably wrong and yet are used to support his increasingly extreme opinions criticising others for pointing out history as an academic discipline doesn’t begin and end with facts is however most amusing.
The fact that he is a big fan of Franco tells you all you need to know about HYUFD.
An ultimatum: 48 hours to ceasefire or we install a No Fly Zone
I know this has run for days on end here at PB, and I have tried hard to ignore it, but just for the record:
There will be no NFZ.
And we should all be very grateful for that. Homo sapiens might yet survive to see the year of our Lord 2023.
To be fair, virtually everybody here has said there will be no NFZ.
I think it will come anyway. Putin will continue to escalate this until we have no choice.
Like it or not the world has changed. So we'd best be ready. It's tough but we need to get over it.
The biggest problem I have right now is that I think Joe Biden is a wet blanket. His disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan undoubtedly fed Putin's narrative for Ukraine: directly contributed to it. We made the same mistake in the build up to the Falklands. It was our naval defence cuts which greenlit the Argentinian invasion. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/margaret-thatcher-warned-naval-cuts-lead-falklands-274521
And Boris Johnson is a useless sack of shit. The last person you want in a war situation. You need someone incredibly organised, in command of the facts and with a core of steel. Maggie, basically.
Fortunately for them and the rest of the world, we clearly have some brilliant leaders in Ukraine. Thanks to the internet they are able to galvanise reaction and action.
Incidentally that article by Sophy Antrobus points out that a No Fly Zone isn't necessarily the solution anyway.
I'm pretty sure this is going to escalate whether we like it or not. That's why we need to stand up to Putin now. We demand a ceasefire, give him 48 hours to enact it and enter talks, or else ...
We stood up to Krushchev. We have to stand up to Putin.
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
An ultimatum: 48 hours to ceasefire or we install a No Fly Zone
I know this has run for days on end here at PB, and I have tried hard to ignore it, but just for the record:
There will be no NFZ.
And we should all be very grateful for that. Homo sapiens might yet survive to see the year of our Lord 2023.
To be fair, virtually everybody here has said there will be no NFZ.
I think it will come anyway. Putin will continue to escalate this until we have no choice.
Like it or not the world has changed. So we'd best be ready. It's tough but we need to get over it.
The biggest problem I have right now is that I think Joe Biden is a wet blanket. His disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan undoubtedly fed Putin's narrative for Ukraine: directly contributed to it. We made the same mistake in the build up to the Falklands. It was our naval defence cuts which greenlit the Argentinian invasion. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/margaret-thatcher-warned-naval-cuts-lead-falklands-274521
And Boris Johnson is a useless sack of shit. The last person you want in a war situation. You need someone incredibly organised, in command of the facts and with a core of steel. Maggie, basically.
Fortunately for them and the rest of the world, we clearly have some brilliant leaders in Ukraine. Thanks to the internet they are able to galvanise reaction and action.
Putin will define any action by the west as an act of war if he wants to. It may br supply of arms, intelligence, economic sanctions of some sort or any other thing that crops up that causes him angst. If and when Putin declares doing X is an act if war, he will ramp up the nuclear threat. He will have hus justification. Creating a NFZ is a short cut to this point. The debate is should we get there with a proactive decision on our terms or wait for Putin to declare it on which ever spurious grounds he chooses at a time that suits him, probably when he is feeling vulnerable and seeing the possibility of defeat. No matter which way it goes it will be a time Putin is stressed or push him there. Unattractive options, but is there another?
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?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Hyufd, you have an undergraduate degree from a university whose quality of teaching has been questioned by colleagues of mine whose judgement I trust.
You do not have a PhD. You have never published anything. You have never taught.
When you have those, come back to me and let me know if your views have changed.
In the meanwhile, please just understand - for once - that you are wrong. Archival research is important (speaking as somebody who's done it in several countries) but it is not quite the bedrock of history you seem to think it is. All other considerations aside, until you have studied the literature you don't know which sources to look at.
An unwavering commitment to slavishly following the line of a bunch of third rate criminals who call themselves the cabinet isn't a substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about. As you are showing here, and as you are showing so often, e.g. on lecturing Richard Tyndall on the qualifications needed to be an engineer.
I am amazed you passed on the free hit of HUYFD clearly having no fucking clue what you meant by literature review.
Absolutely mortifying for him.
He was at Warwick. We make allowances.
(If I’m honest I missed it because I only skim read his post knowing it would be (a) wrong and (b) he would never admit it so it wasn’t worth engaging with him.)
I’m more amazed by the extent of his stubbornness on this point even though he probably knows he’s wrong. Quite amusing that he used his qualifications to try and thwack Eabhal while ignoring the fact I have far higher qualifications in history than he does.
The delightful irony of somebody whose ‘facts’ are almost invariably wrong and yet are used to support his increasingly extreme opinions criticising others for pointing out history as an academic discipline doesn’t begin and end with facts is however most amusing.
Yes, the appeal to authority option is a weird choice, logically speaking.
An ultimatum: 48 hours to ceasefire or we install a No Fly Zone
I know this has run for days on end here at PB, and I have tried hard to ignore it, but just for the record:
There will be no NFZ.
And we should all be very grateful for that. Homo sapiens might yet survive to see the year of our Lord 2023.
To be fair, virtually everybody here has said there will be no NFZ.
I think it will come anyway. Putin will continue to escalate this until we have no choice.
Like it or not the world has changed. So we'd best be ready. It's tough but we need to get over it.
The biggest problem I have right now is that I think Joe Biden is a wet blanket. His disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan undoubtedly fed Putin's narrative for Ukraine: directly contributed to it. We made the same mistake in the build up to the Falklands. It was our naval defence cuts which greenlit the Argentinian invasion. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/margaret-thatcher-warned-naval-cuts-lead-falklands-274521
And Boris Johnson is a useless sack of shit. The last person you want in a war situation. You need someone incredibly organised, in command of the facts and with a core of steel. Maggie, basically.
Fortunately for them and the rest of the world, we clearly have some brilliant leaders in Ukraine. Thanks to the internet they are able to galvanise reaction and action.
Putin will define any action by the west as an act of war if he wants to. It may br supply of arms, intelligence, economic sanctions of some sort or any other thing that crops up that causes him angst. If and when Putin declares doing X is an act if war, he will ramp up the nuclear threat. He will have hus justification. Creatiny a NFZ is a short cut to this point. The debate is should we get there with a proactive decision on our terms or wait for Putin to declare it on which ever spurious grounds he chooses at a time that suits him, probably when he is feeling vulnerable and seeing the possibility of defeat. No matter which way it goes it will be a time Putin is stressed or push him there. Unattractive options, but is there another?
Great post and good to see someone engaging with this on what I would call a realistic level.
My concern tactically is that we have let Putin dictate all the military terms and we have to stop that right now.
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
Well documented doesn't mean every loss will be able to be publicly documented of course, so it seems reasonable to assume the numbers are higher than that, but as you say I cannot imagine anyone serious thinks their estimates are particularly accurate. It's a confusing situation, so long as they're not going full comical ali being generous with the estimates wont undermine matters.
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?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Hyufd, you have an undergraduate degree from a university whose quality of teaching has been questioned by colleagues of mine whose judgement I trust.
You do not have a PhD. You have never published anything. You have never taught.
When you have those, come back to me and let me know if your views have changed.
In the meanwhile, please just understand - for once - that you are wrong. Archival research is important (speaking as somebody who's done it in several countries) but it is not quite the bedrock of history you seem to think it is. All other considerations aside, until you have studied the literature you don't know which sources to look at.
An unwavering commitment to slavishly following the line of a bunch of third rate criminals who call themselves the cabinet isn't a substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about. As you are showing here, and as you are showing so often, e.g. on lecturing Richard Tyndall on the qualifications needed to be an engineer.
I am amazed you passed on the free hit of HUYFD clearly having no fucking clue what you meant by literature review.
Absolutely mortifying for him.
He was at Warwick. We make allowances.
(If I’m honest I missed it because I only skim read his post knowing it would be (a) wrong and (b) he would never admit it so it wasn’t worth engaging with him.)
I’m more amazed by the extent of his stubbornness on this point even though he probably knows he’s wrong. Quite amusing that he used his qualifications to try and thwack Eabhal while ignoring the fact I have far higher qualifications in history than he does.
The delightful irony of somebody whose ‘facts’ are almost invariably wrong and yet are used to support his increasingly extreme opinions criticising others for pointing out history as an academic discipline doesn’t begin and end with facts is however most amusing.
Yes, the appeal to authority option is a weird choice, logically speaking.
Well, it is for somebody who has quite low qualifications and rejects the authority of those better qualified than him.
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
Well documented doesn't mean every loss will be able to be publicly documented of course, so it seems reasonable to assume the numbers are higher than that, but as you say I cannot imagine anyone serious thinks their estimates are particularly accurate. It's a confusing situation, so long as they're not going full comical ali being generous with the estimates wont undermine matters.
How do you classify a multi mile long column of vehicles that appear outwardly serviceable but are stuck with no apparent means of moving? Disabled, destroyed, abandoned? Should they appear in the figures?
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
An awful lot more seem to be being captured than destroyed. Evidence of a lack of Russian will to fight, lack of fuel or a mixture of the two?
Antiwar protest tweeted by the Navalny organisation in Tomsk, with similar from other cities. There is a big list of other cities too for 1400 local time today.
Good to see Karjakin getting banned. I always disliked him for being a Putin supporter. What an arsehole. But lots of Russians do support Putin. And travelling the world etc like Karjakin isn't always enough to change their minds.
Good to see Karjakin getting banned. I always disliked him for being a Putin supporter. What an arsehole. But lots of Russians do support Putin. And travelling the world etc like Karjakin isn't always enough to change their minds.
He also plays very boring chess.
His nickname is 'The Minister for Defence'. He doesn't win that many games but he is incredibly hard to beat.
Interesting and welcome apology from the RCM over maternity scandals
Exclusive: In an interview with @thesundaytimes, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives @GillWaltonRCM apologises for the role the RCM's 'normal birth campaign' played in deaths and injured babies 🧵1/7 #maternitysafety https://t.co/Zvbd9Vpha0
I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power.
I can’t say this for certain (obviously), but I think this is the eventuality.
Why?
The Ru forces are poorly equipped, led, and supplied. Morale is non-existent.
The Ukrs have very high morale, are fighting on home ground with the population behind them, and seem to have enough resources for now.
These things are the components of fighting power.
And I think that once the Russian armed forces fall apart, Putin won’t be able to remain in power.
We will see over the next ten days whether I am right.
Armies that don’t recover their dead from the battlefield tend not to remain cohesive fighting forces.
Within the next ten days it will be clear whether I am right or not; not that all of the steps I outline will happen in the next ten days.”
I read that the Russians have taken a mobile crematorium with them. If I was a Russian soldier I would at least like the comfort of knowing that my comrades and officers would do their very best to recover my mortal remains and return them to my family. I think I’d lose all respect for them if I knew they were just going to fling my cadaver in a big furnace.
We should be spreading info on that mobile crematorium.
Exactly. Let the mothers and wives know that there won’t be a send-off, won’t be a funeral, probably won’t even be an acknowledgement that their sons died, let alone where, when and in what circumstances. Just silence.
A total lack of the basic human dignity, which most countries can manage even in the heat of a war.
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
Well documented doesn't mean every loss will be able to be publicly documented of course, so it seems reasonable to assume the numbers are higher than that, but as you say I cannot imagine anyone serious thinks their estimates are particularly accurate. It's a confusing situation, so long as they're not going full comical ali being generous with the estimates wont undermine matters.
How do you classify a multi mile long column of vehicles that appear outwardly serviceable but are stuck with no apparent means of moving? Disabled, destroyed, abandoned? Should they appear in the figures?
Does anyone know the number of parking tickets issued?
The scale and strength of Ukrainian resistance continues to surprise Russia. It has responded by targeting populated areas in multiple locations, including Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Mariupol. This is likely to represent an effort to break Ukrainian morale. Russia has previously used similar tactics in Chechnya in 1999 and Syria in 2016, employing both air and ground-based munitions.
Russian supply lines reportedly continue to be targeted, slowing the rate of advance of their ground forces. There is a realistic possibility that Russia is now attempting to conceal fuel trucks as regular support trucks to minimise losses.
The scale and strength of Ukrainian resistance continues to surprise Russia. It has responded by targeting populated areas in multiple locations, including Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Mariupol. This is likely to represent an effort to break Ukrainian morale. Russia has previously used similar tactics in Chechnya in 1999 and Syria in 2016, employing both air and ground-based munitions.
Russian supply lines reportedly continue to be targeted, slowing the rate of advance of their ground forces. There is a realistic possibility that Russia is now attempting to conceal fuel trucks as regular support trucks to minimise losses.
Thanks to you guys reporting Twitter stuff here. When I get on Twitter it gives me about a minute before it covers the window telling me to log in or sign up, which I will not do.
Press sign up, then close the sign-up box that pops up.
Christo Grozev linked to an alleged letter from an FSB insider on the Ukraine war, and without commenting on authenticity, it's a very interesting read. I translated and lightly edited it. Starts with a bit of whimper on agri policy, but it sure picks up.
In another thread the conclusion is “quite probably real, or if not a better fake than we’ve seen before” (the longer the fake, the greater the chance for mistakes - this one is long)
The scale and strength of Ukrainian resistance continues to surprise Russia. It has responded by targeting populated areas in multiple locations, including Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Mariupol. This is likely to represent an effort to break Ukrainian morale. Russia has previously used similar tactics in Chechnya in 1999 and Syria in 2016, employing both air and ground-based munitions.
Russian supply lines reportedly continue to be targeted, slowing the rate of advance of their ground forces. There is a realistic possibility that Russia is now attempting to conceal fuel trucks as regular support trucks to minimise losses.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
It's all relative isn't it? The UK forces are good in parts but horribly unbalanced, lacking in support functions and not able to deploy a 100% capable force without significant help from the US. We have no strategic autonomy and appear to be chilled about that,
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
Yes but the only military expeditions we would conceivably fight abroad now without US and NATO or UN support are to defend Gibraltar if the Spanish invaded or the Falklands if the Argentines invaded. The UK armed forces are still bigger than those of Argentina and Spain
I'd look at a map before confidently pronouncing we could defend Gibraltar from Spain.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
It's all relative isn't it? The UK forces are good in parts but horribly unbalanced, lacking in support functions and not able to deploy a 100% capable force without significant help from the US. We have no strategic autonomy and appear to be chilled about that,
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
Yes but the only military expeditions we would conceivably fight abroad now without US and NATO or UN support are to defend Gibraltar if the Spanish invaded or the Falklands if the Argentines invaded. The UK armed forces are still bigger than those of Argentina and Spain
I'd look at a map before confidently pronouncing we could defend Gibraltar from Spain.
And also count my landing ships and naval forces. While reflecting that Gib airfield is no man's land if any war breaks out.
BBC: "Russia said it had advanced by 7km (four miles) in the Donbas region, taking several towns and villages"
We seem to be getting close to this:
Totally not the point, but that rather irks me. In the southern section, adjacent to the french, there were considerable gains on the first day. The lack of ability to quickly reinforce and exploit obscured the fact that the German line was shattered and significant advances made. Hell the cavalry nearly got into action.
BBC: "Russia said it had advanced by 7km (four miles) in the Donbas region, taking several towns and villages"
We seem to be getting close to this:
Totally not the point, but that rather irks me. In the southern section, adjacent to the french, there were considerable gains on the first day. The lack of ability to quickly reinforce and exploit obscured the fact that the German line was shattered and significant advances made. Hell the cavalry nearly got into action.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
It's all relative isn't it? The UK forces are good in parts but horribly unbalanced, lacking in support functions and not able to deploy a 100% capable force without significant help from the US. We have no strategic autonomy and appear to be chilled about that,
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
Yes but the only military expeditions we would conceivably fight abroad now without US and NATO or UN support are to defend Gibraltar if the Spanish invaded or the Falklands if the Argentines invaded. The UK armed forces are still bigger than those of Argentina and Spain
I'd look at a map before confidently pronouncing we could defend Gibraltar from Spain.
Of course we could. It is a rock and strong defensive position, we have a bigger navy than Spain so would control all the water around it and shell and fire on any Spanish military threatening Gibraltar. We would also land large numbers of paratroopers there and the surrounding area to take that. Then once secure we would also land tanks etc and troops in the area surrounding Gibraltar to secure it.
We have a bigger airforce than Spain too which would secure the skies and be used to bomb any Spanish troops threatening Gibraltar too
Comments
Azerbaijan Airlines and Buta Airways will suspend all flights to Russia starting from 08:00 on March 6 (tomorrow).
So far, no-one has tried drones against a complex, in-depth air defence system. That is certainly not what is happening in Ukraine....
At the end of the 19th cent, everyone thought that torpedo boats had seen off the big ships. Then those cheating cads came up with quick firing guns.....
Could be chalk and cheese
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟨🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
good enough....
@jdawsey1
Trump mused to donors that we should take our F-22 planes, "put the Chinese flag on them and bomb the shit out" out of Russia. "And then we say, China did it, we didn't do, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch."
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1500325620789743622
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60635927
We should be spreading info on that mobile crematorium.
The Mail and Mail on Sunday have become a complete joke
Mr D our young Essex friend is married, so presumably......
269 tanks, 945 APC claimed taken out of play by the Ukrainians.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/05/no-fly-zones-ukraine-war-escalation
We HAVE to stand up to Putin.
An ultimatum: 48 hours to ceasefire or we install a No Fly Zone
Thanks to his 'leadership' Britain can only be a bit player, not a leader!
There will be no NFZ.
And we should all be very grateful for that. Homo sapiens might yet survive to see the year of our Lord 2023.
This is no time for NIMBYism. Yes, it's very tough, very grim and bloody awful. But that's war. And we have to defend civilisation.
So it's time to fight.
(If I’m honest I missed it because I only skim read his post knowing it would be (a) wrong and (b) he would never admit it so it wasn’t worth engaging with him.)
I’m more amazed by the extent of his stubbornness on this point even though he probably knows he’s wrong. Quite amusing that he used his qualifications to try and thwack Eabhal while ignoring the fact I have far higher qualifications in history than he does.
The delightful irony of somebody whose ‘facts’ are almost invariably wrong and yet are used to support his increasingly extreme opinions criticising others for pointing out history as an academic discipline doesn’t begin and end with facts is however most amusing.
Wordle 260 1/6*
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Like it or not the world has changed. So we'd best be ready. It's tough but we need to get over it.
The biggest problem I have right now is that I think Joe Biden is a wet blanket. His disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan undoubtedly fed Putin's narrative for Ukraine: directly contributed to it. We made the same mistake in the build up to the Falklands. It was our naval defence cuts which greenlit the Argentinian invasion. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/margaret-thatcher-warned-naval-cuts-lead-falklands-274521
And Boris Johnson is a useless sack of shit. The last person you want in a war situation. You need someone incredibly organised, in command of the facts and with a core of steel. Maggie, basically.
Fortunately for them and the rest of the world, we clearly have some brilliant leaders in Ukraine. Thanks to the internet they are able to galvanise reaction and action.
I'm pretty sure this is going to escalate whether we like it or not. That's why we need to stand up to Putin now. We demand a ceasefire, give him 48 hours to enact it and enter talks, or else ...
We stood up to Krushchev. We have to stand up to Putin.
Tanks (108, of which destroyed: 31, damaged: 2, abandoned: 24, captured: 50)
AFV (76, of which destroyed: 26, abandoned: 16, captured: 33)
IFV (107, of which destroyed: 38, abandoned: 24, captured: 43)
APC (42, of which destroyed: 13, abandoned: 10, captured: 20)
Plus shitloads of MRAP, IMV and crappy trucks.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
I don't blame the Ukranians for chatting shit because their high morale is one of their few advantages and they've got to maintain it as long as possible. But this is the best documented war in history and the old propaganda tricks just don't work anymore. Everybody sees everything.
It may br supply of arms, intelligence, economic sanctions of some sort or any other thing that crops up that causes him angst.
If and when Putin declares doing X is an act if war, he will ramp up the nuclear threat. He will have hus justification.
Creating a NFZ is a short cut to this point.
The debate is should we get there with a proactive decision on our terms or wait for Putin to declare it on which ever spurious grounds he chooses at a time that suits him, probably when he is feeling vulnerable and seeing the possibility of defeat.
No matter which way it goes it will be a time Putin is stressed or push him there. Unattractive options, but is there another?
My concern tactically is that we have let Putin dictate all the military terms and we have to stop that right now.
Disabled, destroyed, abandoned? Should they appear in the figures?
We seem to be getting close to this:
https://twitter.com/fbkinfo/status/1500374614148538372?t=rOyjLclq9ax906TyYN-E2A&s=19
Good to see Karjakin getting banned. I always disliked him for being a Putin supporter. What an arsehole. But lots of Russians do support Putin. And travelling the world etc like Karjakin isn't always enough to change their minds.
His nickname is 'The Minister for Defence'. He doesn't win that many games but he is incredibly hard to beat.
Exclusive: In an interview with @thesundaytimes, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives @GillWaltonRCM apologises for the role the RCM's 'normal birth campaign' played in deaths and injured babies 🧵1/7 #maternitysafety
https://t.co/Zvbd9Vpha0
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1500368962449776640?t=a0v6mTf91qauWCHPuN8Gqg&s=19
A total lack of the basic human dignity, which most countries can manage even in the heat of a war.
The scale and strength of Ukrainian resistance continues to surprise Russia. It has responded by targeting populated areas in multiple locations, including Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Mariupol. This is likely to represent an effort to break Ukrainian morale. Russia has previously used similar tactics in Chechnya in 1999 and Syria in 2016, employing both air and ground-based munitions.
Russian supply lines reportedly continue to be targeted, slowing the rate of advance of their ground forces. There is a realistic possibility that Russia is now attempting to conceal fuel trucks as regular support trucks to minimise losses.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1500357239428763649
run out of fuel
https://twitter.com/mwr_dbm/status/1500317789390876672
In another thread the conclusion is “quite probably real, or if not a better fake than we’ve seen before” (the longer the fake, the greater the chance for mistakes - this one is long)
Totally not the point.
We have a bigger airforce than Spain too which would secure the skies and be used to bomb any Spanish troops threatening Gibraltar too