It’s a 12.5% betting chance that Putin will be out by May 1st – politicalbetting.com

System

It’s a 12.5% betting chance that Putin will be out by May 1st – politicalbetting.com

The only betting I can find that links to the Ukraine crisis is on the Smarkets betting exchange on whether Putin will still be Russian president on May 1st.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First, like No, unfortunately.

swing_voter

It'll be interesting to see who lasts longest, BJ , Biden or Putin.

Benpointer

May 1st is too soon to hope for, sadly. By the end of 2022, maybe?

Morris_Dancer

I am not inclined to bet on this.

Sandpit

May 1st seems unlikely, unless he escalates things to the point that the Western world turns to glass it becomes difficult to collect your winnings from the bookie.

Malmesbury

When is the next by-election/local election in Russia?

JACK_W

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Jonathan

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

MarqueeMark

Damn you, new thread!

FPT:

Pro_Rata said:
"I am left asking what more can we do, but more thinking what option do we have short of things requiring full engagement with Russian forces."

We already have a level of engagement with Russian forces, via our weaponry put in theatre. Can't imagine the Russian Army and its mercenaries look forward to full engagement with NATO, so it's hard to imagine Putin is provoking an encounter that he would lose very quickly indeed. Those columns of vehicles would be gone within the hour, his air force west of the Urals within two.

Provoking NATO into full engagement only leaves him with a nuclear response. And resulting obliteration of his country in short order. Would his generals really go along with that battle plan?

Blitzkrieg within a non-NATO neighbour has clearly failed. His troops are bogged down, supply lines not protected. A conventional war launched into NATO borders has been shown to be unwinnable. All he has is long-range demolition of cities. Effective. But is it as effective as long-range demolition of the Russian economy by sanctions?

Putin has gone to war to prevent NATO expansion. The likely outcome is that NATO will expand its borders to Finland and Sweden. Moldova next. The moment the Belarus dictator falls, it will apply too. It's hard not to think Putin has brought a knife to a gunfight.

HYUFD

If Putin is removed it will be internally if economic sanctions prove too much to bear. However I don't expect that to happen anytime soon

Malmesbury

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Yes.

But we have fucked the bank accounts of the bully, and his business. In a short space of time he won't be able to afford a pair of shoes.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

Damn you, new thread!

FPT:

Pro_Rata said:
"I am left asking what more can we do, but more thinking what option do we have short of things requiring full engagement with Russian forces."

We already have a level of engagement with Russian forces, via our weaponry put in theatre. Can't imagine the Russian Army and its mercenaries look forward to full engagement with NATO, so it's hard to imagine Putin is provoking an encounter that he would lose very quickly indeed. Those columns of vehicles would be gone within the hour, his air force west of the Urals within two.

Provoking NATO into full engagement only leaves him with a nuclear response. And resulting obliteration of his country in short order. Would his generals really go along with that battle plan?

Blitzkrieg within a non-NATO neighbour has clearly failed. His troops are bogged down, supply lines not protected. A conventional war launched into NATO borders has been shown to be unwinnable. All he has is long-range demolition of cities. Effective. But is it as effective as long-range demolition of the Russian economy by sanctions?

Putin has gone to war to prevent NATO expansion. The likely outcome is that NATO will expand its borders to Finland and Sweden. Moldova next. The moment the Belarus dictator falls, it will apply too. It's hard not to think Putin has brought a knife to a gunfight.

That is assuming Putin does not also decide to invade non NATO Moldova and Georgia first which is not impossible. He will also continue to prop up Lukashenko much as Hitler propped up Mussolini

Malmesbury

On Putin going - he (and his supporters*) will present any such thing as a NATO** victory and therefore a defeat for Great Russia.

*People who are for the chop under new management
**According to my Russian relatives it's NATO, NATO, NATO in Russian thinking.

TOPPING

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

JACK_W

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

CarlottaVance

swing_voter said:

It'll be interesting to see who lasts longest, BJ , Biden or Putin.

Biden - unless a higher authority intervenes.

TOPPING

Putin is going nowhere. I think the 12.5% has been derived using the @HYUFD percentage calculator.
.

Scott_xP

JACK_W said:

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

How does any of that stop Putin launching his nukes?

YBarddCwsc

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

You were then eased into a straitjacket with two stout keepers to make sure you did not set the place on fire ?

TOPPING

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

LOL

You're a funny guy. Not so funny for those who are planning on spending more time on this planet than perhaps you.

CarlottaVance

Martin Lewis on R4 making interesting point that government may be trying to shift discussion on “cost of living crisis” by suggesting it’s “for Ukraine” - where all the Ukraine war has done is exacerbated the crisis already in place.

JACK_W

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Yes.

But we have fucked the bank accounts of the bully, and his business. In a short space of time he won't be able to afford a pair of shoes.

Ukraine doesn't have your supposed "short space of time" and Putin doesn't care enough about sanctions to stop the war.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, disparaging a man because of his age might imply that you can't find fault with his argument.

A perspective should be considered on its merits, not the demographics of the speaker.

CarlottaVance

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

LOL

You're a funny guy. Not so funny for those who are planning on spending more time on this planet than perhaps you.

I have noticed the more gung ho NFZ proponents tend to have more of their life behind them than ahead of them…

HYUFD

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

You make Liz Truss look like a CND pacifist

rottenborough

Morning all,

Extraordinarily dangerous few days coming I think. WH briefing that intelligence suggests Putin is planning chemical attacks in Ukr. Could all be part of the mind games. But if he does launch one I can see the pressure on Biden and co. to do the NFZ will become too great. And then its full war. Which may suit Putin as it distracts from the smaller failing Ukr war and he can go straight to nuclear without passing 'Go'.

Let us pray his senior generals take him out before he kills us all.

Benpointer

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

4. End world poverty and all disease. (Slightly more likely than 3.)

Northstar

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

The other daft thing about any ‘re-arming’ debate is that in terms of conventional force (tanks troops missiles planes etc) Russia has proved itself woefully inadequate vs Ukraine. So if ‘re-arming’ means increasing our spend on those things, it does seem like just a way to funnel money to pet projects with no real value.

Cheap drones, better cyberwarfare capabilities, and of course even more investment in human intelligence all seem like better priorities.

glw

FPT:

Chameleon said:

US revising up their numbers dramatically: https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1501718359099981835

"NEW from @CBSDavidMartin: A U.S. official estimates Russians have lost 5,000-6,000 killed in the first 2 weeks of battle. Standard battlefield math assumes 3x as many wounded as killed, so that puts the number of wounded at 15,000-18,000."

Lowest western estimate is 1 in 8 of the pre-staged Russian forces dead, wounded, awol, or captured. European estimates are up towards 20%. Staggering, and completely unsustainable. Bear in mind that only 60ish thousand of the 180k are frontline combat troops, although they've clearly been taking significant losses in logistic, riot policing, and rear echelon troops.

Based on those numbers each week of Putin's War in Ukraine has cost Russia more lives than the worst years of the Soviet-Afghan War.

Sandpit

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

LOL

You're a funny guy. Not so funny for those who are planning on spending more time on this planet than perhaps you.

I have noticed the more gung ho NFZ proponents tend to have more of their life behind them than ahead of them…

Just because “No Fly Zone” sounds more fluffy than, in the best Kenny Everett voice, “Let’s Bomb Russia”, doesn’t make the implementation of the two concepts any different in practice.

northern_monkey

Taking back control blah blah blah, levelling up waffle waffle waffle.

LOOK AT THE WAR YOU STUPID FUCKING PLEBS!!!! ISN’T BORIS HAVING A GOOD WAR!!! HE’S JUST LIKE FUCKING CHURCHILL!!!! YOU FUCKING LOVE CHURCHILL!!!!!

TOPPING

YBarddCwsc said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

You were then eased into a straitjacket with two stout keepers to make sure you did not set the place on fire ?

I wonder what the difference is between @JackW's and the average age of the politburo.
.

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Extraordinarily dangerous few days coming I think. WH briefing that intelligence suggests Putin is planning chemical attacks in Ukr. Could all be part of the mind games. But if he does launch one I can see the pressure on Biden and co. to do the NFZ will become too great. And then its full war. Which may suit Putin as it distracts from the smaller failing Ukr war and he can go straight to nuclear without passing 'Go'.

Let us pray his senior generals take him out before he kills us all.

Given the US and western nations did not launch strikes even on a much weaker Assad after he launched chemical weapons on Syrian rebels and hit children in a hospital, I highly doubt even the use of chemical weapons by Putin in Ukraine will lead to a western response beyond more sanctions.

Jonathan

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

Nice idea, but you are rather assuming Putin plays ball. If the Russians carry on, what happens then? Putin could just ignore it.

I do appreciate the spirit of not being reactive and essentially turning the burden of the difficult calculation 180 degrees.

rottenborough

Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
.
@JSHeappey
: "He should reflect very urgently on what has happened to other countries when they have used this."
Caveats accepted, that sounds the clearest warning yet that the West could respond militarily if chemical weapons were deployed in Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1501839988832485383

swing_voter

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

what happens with the occupied territory (from 2014) if Ukraine joins NATO.... does that mean that NATO is obliged to capture it back off the Russians....

eek

CarlottaVance said:

Martin Lewis on R4 making interesting point that government may be trying to shift discussion on “cost of living crisis” by suggesting it’s “for Ukraine” - where all the Ukraine war has done is exacerbated the crisis already in place.

And? That's what Governments have done for Time Immemorial. All we are seeing is how lucky a General Bozo is:

Covid covers the pain of Brexit as it's impossible to sanely separate 1 effect from the other.
Ukraine covers the cost of living crisis because it's exacerbating that crisis...

HYUFD

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

LOL

You're a funny guy. Not so funny for those who are planning on spending more time on this planet than perhaps you.

I have noticed the more gung ho NFZ proponents tend to have more of their life behind them than ahead of them…

Well, they might at least go out with a bang! Just so would the rest of us as well

JACK_W

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

SouthamObserver

Today’s YouGov:
Labour 39
Tories 33
LibDems 10
Greens 7
Reform 4
SNP 4

CarlottaVance

northern_monkey said:

Taking back control blah blah blah, levelling up waffle waffle waffle.

LOOK AT THE WAR YOU STUPID FUCKING PLEBS!!!! ISN’T BORIS HAVING A GOOD WAR!!! HE’S JUST LIKE FUCKING CHURCHILL!!!! YOU FUCKING LOVE CHURCHILL!!!!!

And now the Irish government has taken political responsibility for something out with their control and cut a major revenue source. I’d say “they’ll live to regret this” but they probably won’t live….

NorthofStoke

swing_voter said:

It'll be interesting to see who lasts longest, BJ , Biden or Putin.

I they all go simultaneously then then our worst fears will have come to pass.

Malmesbury

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

My redline is Craft Cocktails in Gdansk. If the Russians get there, it's tine to launch Trident.

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, disparaging a man because of his age might imply that you can't find fault with his argument.

A perspective should be considered on its merits, not the demographics of the speaker.

MD you been supping from the same magic fountain, from any perspective it is mental and means NATO troops into Ukraine and WWIII immediately.

TOPPING

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Big_G_NorthWales

SouthamObserver said:

Today’s YouGov:
Labour 39
Tories 33
LibDems 10
Greens 7
Reform 4
SNP 4

Conservative fall - refugee visas impacting opinion?

HYUFD

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

The whole point of NATO is to defend NATO states and NATO states alone, not the entire world.

None of the 4 nations you mentioned are in NATO. We hope Putin does not invade any of them and would tighten sanctions on him even further if he does but invasion of any of them would not lead to war.

However 30,000 NATO troops are doing an exercise in NATO member Norway today and NATO troop reinforcements continue to arrive in the NATO countries of Poland, Romania and the Baltic states. Nations within NATO continue to benefit from it in terms of security and defence, those who don't will have to take their chances and build up their own defences. Finland and Sweden for example have long had a relatively pacifist policy of neutrality towards NATO, fine when no threat but that was the risk they chose given they now face a threat

RochdalePioneers

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

JACK_W

HYUFD said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

You make Liz Truss look like a CND pacifist

Thank you. I accept the plaudit.

Nigelb

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

Problem with that is it requires you to control the leadership of every NATO member, each of whom has a veto. Just not a realistic suggestion.

Assuming you're our PM, and not a world dictator, what would you do ?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. G, I never expressed support for a no fly zone.

I expressed dismay at discounting an argument based not on flaws within it, but by disparaging the one making said argument.

Big_G_NorthWales

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

My criticism of Ellwood is that he wants British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Today’s YouGov:
Labour 39
Tories 33
LibDems 10
Greens 7
Reform 4
SNP 4

Conservative fall - refugee visas impacting opinion?

Only a 2% fall, not major in the Conservative vote and the Green vote also down. LDs slightly up as well as Labour

algarkirk

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

NATO has exactly one clear red line. Article 5. Since 1948 it has never been crossed. The suggestion that their red line should be changed has lots of support from policy wonks, institutes and of course keyboard warriors. But I don't think there is a single major party in a NATO country who support it.

They may all be wrong, but they are not all dim. For example SKS 100% supports USA and Boris on this matter.

It is obvious (I think) that if the nuclear issue were not on the table we would have intervened. So I think we should draw clear inferences.

Sunil_Prasannan

Hey, hey, VVP
How many kids did you kill today?

CarlottaVance

Must watch. Ukrainian artillery fire hunts the Russian armoured vehicles.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1501838967947333632

TOPPING

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

Ellwood was a captain in 1 RGJ ffs. He knows a very limited amount of detail. And of course his parliamentary career has included being more involved in matters military. But he is not PM and doesn't need to consider the bigger picture. Johnson does.

Don't get me wrong - you know my views on Johnson being wholly unsuitable for any influential political role and dear god he is PM but on this, because Ellwood repeats what he has been told by CGS doesn't make it god's honest truth. Of course our forces have been run down. That is a choice (implicitly) that the country has made over the past few decades. We don't want a huge military for no one knows what purpose. The only people who want a huge military are on the General Staff. And it is their job to want a huge military. It is the PM's job to weigh up their demands vs other priorities.

Just as we don't want a health service that would cost a substantial amount more than we currently pay. We might say we want all sorts of things and puppy dog tails, but our actions at the ballot box show that we don't actually.

RochdalePioneers

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Extraordinarily dangerous few days coming I think. WH briefing that intelligence suggests Putin is planning chemical attacks in Ukr. Could all be part of the mind games. But if he does launch one I can see the pressure on Biden and co. to do the NFZ will become too great. And then its full war. Which may suit Putin as it distracts from the smaller failing Ukr war and he can go straight to nuclear without passing 'Go'.

Let us pray his senior generals take him out before he kills us all.

What has been revealed - perhaps to our surprise - in this war is the general disarray in Russia's kit and troops. Badly maintained equipment, conscripted and demoralised troops, crap supply lines, no mobility besides main roads.

So when we talk about a general war between NATO and Russia, the old Warsaw Pact threat of a massive ground invasion feels unlikely. General War is going to be fought in the air - a "no-fly zone" which is ineffective against missiles launched from near Moscow against Ukraine. And then into a wider air war as both sides try and bomb each other's troops and bases.

And then? Is the Russian airforce as decrepit as the army? Feels not, there have been plenty of incursions by Russian aircraft into UK defensive airspace that we have had to scramble fighters to respond to.

So this general war starts with a no-fly zone, escalates to air attacks on Russian forces in Russia and NATO forces in the Baltics / Romania / Poland, then escalates again to Russia bombing RAF bases in the UK.

Doesn't take very long before we're at the nuclear threshold does it?

JosiasJessop

FPT:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/10/wrongly-built-drainage-system-led-to-stonehaven-train-crash-investigators-find

Quite unexpected to find it is not old Victorian engineering* that was the problem but very modern contractor work.

Indeed. Also note that there were issues with Network Rail not inspecting the upper parts of the drainage system, at all - because it had not been entered onto the system. This is where (in the good old days) linesmen would have known 'their' patrol stretch like the back of their hand, and would have known to look at the state of the drains.

Having said that, these sorts of things were also much more frequent in those days...

RAIB have produced a chilling video showing what happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iP0PJMu_8s

And RAIB's report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1059412/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf

felix

CarlottaVance said:

Martin Lewis on R4 making interesting point that government may be trying to shift discussion on “cost of living crisis” by suggesting it’s “for Ukraine” - where all the Ukraine war has done is exacerbated the crisis already in place.

In the UK, Europe and the USA at least and all pre-dating Ukraine. Not a uniquely UK crisis.

TheWhiteRabbit

RochdalePioneers said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Extraordinarily dangerous few days coming I think. WH briefing that intelligence suggests Putin is planning chemical attacks in Ukr. Could all be part of the mind games. But if he does launch one I can see the pressure on Biden and co. to do the NFZ will become too great. And then its full war. Which may suit Putin as it distracts from the smaller failing Ukr war and he can go straight to nuclear without passing 'Go'.

Let us pray his senior generals take him out before he kills us all.

What has been revealed - perhaps to our surprise - in this war is the general disarray in Russia's kit and troops. Badly maintained equipment, conscripted and demoralised troops, crap supply lines, no mobility besides main roads.

So when we talk about a general war between NATO and Russia, the old Warsaw Pact threat of a massive ground invasion feels unlikely. General War is going to be fought in the air - a "no-fly zone" which is ineffective against missiles launched from near Moscow against Ukraine. And then into a wider air war as both sides try and bomb each other's troops and bases.

And then? Is the Russian airforce as decrepit as the army? Feels not, there have been plenty of incursions by Russian aircraft into UK defensive airspace that we have had to scramble fighters to respond to.

So this general war starts with a no-fly zone, escalates to air attacks on Russian forces in Russia and NATO forces in the Baltics / Romania / Poland, then escalates again to Russia bombing RAF bases in the UK.

Doesn't take very long before we're at the nuclear threshold does it?

I wonder what the British Intelligence view of this is. Russia has committed outdated tech to the front lines, we know that. Does that mean it has kept the best in reserve - or was this genuinely Russia's attempt to put its best foot forward? Has that view changed over the course of the invasion?

RochdalePioneers

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Why do I have the urge to watch a load of films this weekend? Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe, By Dawn's Early Light, The Day After, Threads, When the Wind Blows etc.

MrEd

RochdalePioneers said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Extraordinarily dangerous few days coming I think. WH briefing that intelligence suggests Putin is planning chemical attacks in Ukr. Could all be part of the mind games. But if he does launch one I can see the pressure on Biden and co. to do the NFZ will become too great. And then its full war. Which may suit Putin as it distracts from the smaller failing Ukr war and he can go straight to nuclear without passing 'Go'.

Let us pray his senior generals take him out before he kills us all.

What has been revealed - perhaps to our surprise - in this war is the general disarray in Russia's kit and troops. Badly maintained equipment, conscripted and demoralised troops, crap supply lines, no mobility besides main roads.

So when we talk about a general war between NATO and Russia, the old Warsaw Pact threat of a massive ground invasion feels unlikely. General War is going to be fought in the air - a "no-fly zone" which is ineffective against missiles launched from near Moscow against Ukraine. And then into a wider air war as both sides try and bomb each other's troops and bases.

And then? Is the Russian airforce as decrepit as the army? Feels not, there have been plenty of incursions by Russian aircraft into UK defensive airspace that we have had to scramble fighters to respond to.

So this general war starts with a no-fly zone, escalates to air attacks on Russian forces in Russia and NATO forces in the Baltics / Romania / Poland, then escalates again to Russia bombing RAF bases in the UK.

Doesn't take very long before we're at the nuclear threshold does it?

The Jen Psaki comments last night on chemical weapons was instructive, not for what it said about Russia but that it singled out China as aiding Russia’s deception. To me, that looks like a clear sign that the US Administration is telling China that, if chemical weapons are used, China will be hit with a whole range of economic and financial sanctions that the US can use against countries it sees as aiding aggressors / breaking sanctions. Given Chinese GDP growth this year looks tepid and / or questionable, the Chinese are likely to be very nervous about that.

As I said before, China may be the best restrainer on Russia at the moment.

TOPPING

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Why do I have the urge to watch a load of films this weekend? Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe, By Dawn's Early Light, The Day After, Threads, When the Wind Blows etc.

Please don't. Doesn't do anyone any good. Sit yourself down for a huge sesh with Superstore. Currently the funniest series around (watch it from the beginning on Netflix rather than randomly on terrestrial).

TheWhiteRabbit

"Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the Government and his asserts - including Chelsea Football Club - have been frozen"
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1501847597140660226

rottenborough

CarlottaVance said:

Must watch. Ukrainian artillery fire hunts the Russian armoured vehicles.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1501838967947333632

sitting ducks.

This must becoming acutely embarrassing to RU military command.

mwadams

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I think Jack's analysis is correct; and your challenge is actually a follow up that means you can't, in the short term, make that happen; it's a long-term problem, just like Cold War I. Economics and perception of standards of living for ordinary Russians that does it in the end.

How long that takes is, in part, dependent on how long, prolonged and bloody their engagement in Ukraine remains. None of this is any help to ordinary citizens of Ukraine (or, indeed, the majority of Russian conscript soldiers).

That

Selebian

TOPPING said:

Putin is going nowhere. I think the 12.5% has been derived using the @HYUFD percentage calculator.
.

Interestingly, OGH was not explicit as to which side of the bet he'd taken...

RochdalePioneers

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Must watch. Ukrainian artillery fire hunts the Russian armoured vehicles.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1501838967947333632

sitting ducks.

This must becoming acutely embarrassing to RU military command.

Russian Armoured Column. Go Fuck Yourselves.

NerysHughes

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Must watch. Ukrainian artillery fire hunts the Russian armoured vehicles.

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1501838967947333632

sitting ducks.

This must becoming acutely embarrassing to RU military command.

The abject failure of the Russian Military with the whole world watching the failure is astonishing.

Nigelb

Northstar said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

The other daft thing about any ‘re-arming’ debate is that in terms of conventional force (tanks troops missiles planes etc) Russia has proved itself woefully inadequate vs Ukraine. So if ‘re-arming’ means increasing our spend on those things, it does seem like just a way to funnel money to pet projects with no real value.

Cheap drones, better cyberwarfare capabilities, and of course even more investment in human intelligence all seem like better priorities.

The first part of re-arming would be buying more ordnance for the non obsolete expensive kit that we do have. In any conventional war we're likely to be directly involved in, that means medium and long range missiles for Typhoons and F35s, and likewise for the navy.
A Typhoon carrying a full complement of longer range air to air missiles is massively more effective than two Typhoons carrying a couple each, for example. It's a relatively easy and cost effective way to make the most of what we have, quickly and without protracted debate.

More tanks would be some way down my list. Bringing forward the purchase of the Korean self-propelled 155mm artillery would probably be more cost effective.

Dura_Ace

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

Ellwood was a captain in 1 RGJ ffs. He knows a very limited amount of detail. And of course his parliamentary career has included being more involved in matters military. But he is not PM and doesn't need to consider the bigger picture. Johnson does.

Don't get me wrong - you know my views on Johnson being wholly unsuitable for any influential political role and dear god he is PM but on this, because Ellwood repeats what he has been told by CGS doesn't make it god's honest truth. Of course our forces have been run down. That is a choice (implicitly) that the country has made over the past few decades. We don't want a huge military for no one knows what purpose. The only people who want a huge military are on the General Staff. And it is their job to want a huge military. It is the PM's job to weigh up their demands vs other priorities.

Just as we don't want a health service that would cost a substantial amount more than we currently pay. We might say we want all sorts of things and puppy dog tails, but our actions at the ballot box show that we don't actually.

You also have to tease out the difference between the things the armed forces want to achieve and their capacity to achieve them if actually given the money.

Does anybody believe giving the army more cash would result in more defence capability coming out of the other end?

Big_G_NorthWales

Blackford to stand down ?

https://twitter.com/9andrewmcdonald/status/1501831220556095489?t=40t5MW55rntzpBF1ons8vQ&s=19

OldKingCole

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the Government and his asserts - including Chelsea Football Club - have been frozen"
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1501847597140660226

Plenty of people in Norfolk will wonder whether that'll make a difference tonight.

Malmesbury

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Why do I have the urge to watch a load of films this weekend? Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe, By Dawn's Early Light, The Day After, Threads, When the Wind Blows etc.

The dinner party scene in the original Failsafe is awesome. I bet on the file clerks....

YBarddCwsc

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Ukraine has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Ukraine should pick the least bad option now.

And NATO should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Ukraine believes the West will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

kinabalu

algarkirk said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

NATO has exactly one clear red line. Article 5. Since 1948 it has never been crossed. The suggestion that their red line should be changed has lots of support from policy wonks, institutes and of course keyboard warriors. But I don't think there is a single major party in a NATO country who support it.

They may all be wrong, but they are not all dim. For example SKS 100% supports USA and Boris on this matter.

It is obvious (I think) that if the nuclear issue were not on the table we would have intervened. So I think we should draw clear inferences.

Yes, the red line is as per the NATO treaty. The organization lives or dies based on the inviolability of that. Let's hope it isn't tested. So long as everyone believes it, it shouldn't be. The one-two sequence that leads to catastrophe is that Putin doubts it's a red line and then finds out it is. Therefore it's crucial to avoid the first of those. Of all the important aspects to the US response this is probably the most important.

As for inferences drawn, one of them unfortunately is that any fascist strongman worth his salt needs to get some nuclear weapons if he wishes to make a big splash in the fascist strongman space. If you don't have them you can't get on and commit your atrocities in peace.

Nigelb

Dura_Ace said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

Ellwood was a captain in 1 RGJ ffs. He knows a very limited amount of detail. And of course his parliamentary career has included being more involved in matters military. But he is not PM and doesn't need to consider the bigger picture. Johnson does.

Don't get me wrong - you know my views on Johnson being wholly unsuitable for any influential political role and dear god he is PM but on this, because Ellwood repeats what he has been told by CGS doesn't make it god's honest truth. Of course our forces have been run down. That is a choice (implicitly) that the country has made over the past few decades. We don't want a huge military for no one knows what purpose. The only people who want a huge military are on the General Staff. And it is their job to want a huge military. It is the PM's job to weigh up their demands vs other priorities.

Just as we don't want a health service that would cost a substantial amount more than we currently pay. We might say we want all sorts of things and puppy dog tails, but our actions at the ballot box show that we don't actually.

You also have to tease out the difference between the things the armed forces want to achieve and their capacity to achieve them if actually given the money.

Does anybody believe giving the army more cash would result in more defence capability coming out of the other end?

We all know what comes out of the other end when you feed something.

Applicant

Nigelb said:

JACK_W said:

Jonathan said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

JACK_W said:

Malmesbury said:

NATO protects only NATO - well, that was the whole point in the original design. Not to extend commitments beyond the core territory* of the member states. So that people would know what they were getting into.

As to defending NATO states - the US, UK and others are continuously reinforcing and increasing troop numbers in the Baltics States and Poland. That means that if the Russians attack, they will automatically be fighting them.

1990's Yugoslavia says hello.

Yes - perhaps the exception that proves the rule. The Serbs had some vague backing from the Soviet Union, but nothing definite. Some argue, though that the Pristina Airport thing was a pivotal moment in Russian Greater Nationalism and it's revival....

The difference is we were prepared to confront and defeat the Serbian bully but the bigger Russian bully not so much. We prod him, we take his pocket money away, we say horrible things to him. But the bully still attacks our friend and will continue to do so and other friends until we put the Russian bully on his arse.

Nice idea. How?

I noted my views last night and there was a lively debate Essentially :

1. No fly zone with immediate effect
2. Admit Ukraine into NATO with immediate effect and Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia should they wish.
3. Immediate ceasefire and Russian forces to begin withdraw within 12 hours.

Problem with that is it requires you to control the leadership of every NATO member, each of whom has a veto. Just not a realistic suggestion.

And also that Ukraine has been ineligible for NATO membership since 2014 when Russia stole Crimea (countries with ongoing border disputes can't join).

Malmesbury

Dura_Ace said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

Ellwood reeled off a list of areas where our forces have been run down. Big Dog kept foaming on about tank battles in Germany which was explicitly not what Ellwood was saying. I imagine that the PM gets his military advice from the military. Ellwood is military. Of course different branches argue for supremacy, but the idea that BJ knows the detail on this and Ellwood does not feels a bit fanciful.

Ellwood was a captain in 1 RGJ ffs. He knows a very limited amount of detail. And of course his parliamentary career has included being more involved in matters military. But he is not PM and doesn't need to consider the bigger picture. Johnson does.

Don't get me wrong - you know my views on Johnson being wholly unsuitable for any influential political role and dear god he is PM but on this, because Ellwood repeats what he has been told by CGS doesn't make it god's honest truth. Of course our forces have been run down. That is a choice (implicitly) that the country has made over the past few decades. We don't want a huge military for no one knows what purpose. The only people who want a huge military are on the General Staff. And it is their job to want a huge military. It is the PM's job to weigh up their demands vs other priorities.

Just as we don't want a health service that would cost a substantial amount more than we currently pay. We might say we want all sorts of things and puppy dog tails, but our actions at the ballot box show that we don't actually.

You also have to tease out the difference between the things the armed forces want to achieve and their capacity to achieve them if actually given the money.

Does anybody believe giving the army more cash would result in more defence capability coming out of the other end?

Depends how brutal the pruning of the "requirements" is.

For example - "No, you can't have a artillery system that is transportable by a C-130, stealthy, range of 200km with guided shells. You can have an artillery system that can actually exist though - get some brochures from real manufacturers".

tlg86

TalkSPORT saying only season ticket holders can go to Stamford Bridge.

That puts them in breach of the away allocation rule, so they should be expelled from the league.

Malmesbury

YBarddCwsc said:

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Ukraine has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Ukraine should pick the least bad option now.

And NATO should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Ukraine believes the West will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Russia has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Russia should pick the least bad option now.

And China should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Russia believes the East will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

BlancheLivermore

Senile twattish armchair general grandmaster update..

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Another day, a million more refugees, dozens more innocent Ukrainian civilians murdered intentionally by Putin's military. Another set of strange excuses for not sending air power so Ukraine can defend itself.

Feel free to call me a paranoid Russian, but US statements combined with what I'm hearing leave an unpleasant picture of American priorities regarding Putin and the future of Ukraine. It seems they are still trying to make deals with a mass murderer.

Bennett's shuttle diplomacy, Russia still at the Iran deal table, public bickering with Poland over jets - all with no explanation of the White House's aims or rationales. Is Putin to be cut off or bargained with? It cannot be both, not while his genocide accelerates.

I fear the US wants a face-saving exit for Putin, to pressure Ukraine to surrender, the worst sanctions lifted, Crimea & E Ukraine still occupied. Promises to Zelensky to pay for rebuilding, sorry for the massacre. Russian accord on Iran deal & Kerry's green delusions.

Call this a conspiracy, but what explanation is there for not doing everything possible to defend Ukraine? NATO nations, including the US, are already sending weapons. Jets no, because no one wants responsibility for protecting a besieged people from mass murder?

As disastrous as that would be, allowing Putin to regroup & prepare his next escalation, sending such overtures is also the worst signal to give. It shows weakness and fear, so Putin knows he can continue his bombardment knowing no help is coming.

As I said after the first day, deterrence is over. Strong sanctions and limited weapons to Ukraine would have stopped Putin 8 years ago, perhaps even 4 months ago. Now it's all-out war, civilians being bombed & shelled, and the US is still acting like it's 2014.

The White House must do the right thing or explain why it is refusing to. At best it's cowardice & an attempt to do nothing until nothing can be done. At worst, they are sacrificing Ukrainian lives to negotiate with Putin on things they deem higher priorities.

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1501757083414409217

Taz

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Why do I have the urge to watch a load of films this weekend? Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe, By Dawn's Early Light, The Day After, Threads, When the Wind Blows etc.

The BFI DVD release of The War Game is also well worth a watch.

Big_G_NorthWales

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

You senile old twat.

Or are you auditioning for the village hall production of Dr Strangelove.

Why do I have the urge to watch a load of films this weekend? Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe, By Dawn's Early Light, The Day After, Threads, When the Wind Blows etc.

Sound of Music or the Great Escape would be better or even the Railway Children

eek

tlg86 said:

TalkSPORT saying only season ticket holders can go to Stamford Bridge.

That puts them in breach of the away allocation rule, so they should be expelled from the league.

I suspect it will be season ticket holders and away supporters only (with the away supporters money held in limbo)...

TimS

The Japanese trolling this week about the Kuril Islands was a reminder that Russia is exposed on a number of axes, and surely now is a good time if you're a Syrian rebel, a Kazakh protester or a Chechen separatist to make a bit of trouble. Not to mention Belarussian opposition, which surely will come into play again sooner or later.

YBarddCwsc

Malmesbury said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Ukraine has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Ukraine should pick the least bad option now.

And NATO should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Ukraine believes the West will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Russia has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Russia should pick the least bad option now.

And China should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Russia believes the East will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

The difference is that the war is being fought in Ukraine.

It is Ukraine that is being razed to the ground. It is Ukrainians who are fleeing their country (and of course many will never return).

For sure, Russia faces serious problems.

But, it is Ukraine that is being turned into a charnel house.

RochdalePioneers

Totally off-topic but had an odd one on our online store. Complaining that we had sent totally the wrong order. Lists what he ordered and what he received. Check web store and what he thinks he ordered is totally different to what he claimed he ordered. Send a screen grab.

Another email back with yet another list of what was received. So I'm going to have to open an investigation into what exactly was on the pick sheet, whether the picker made a mistake etc. Eugh. Oh, he asks for a full refund. Which I have given him.

As with my other posts on customer service it is more costly to get into an argument - time, money and reputational cost - than to operate no quibble and issue a refund a move on.

tlg86

eek said:

tlg86 said:

TalkSPORT saying only season ticket holders can go to Stamford Bridge.

That puts them in breach of the away allocation rule, so they should be expelled from the league.

I suspect it will be season ticket holders and away supporters only (with the away supporters money held in limbo)...

Or no fee at all.

IanB2

TimS said:

The Japanese trolling this week about the Kuril Islands was a reminder that Russia is exposed on a number of axes, and surely now is a good time if you're a Syrian rebel, a Kazakh protester or a Chechen separatist to make a bit of trouble. Not to mention Belarussian opposition, which surely will come into play again sooner or later.

Most of the leaders of the latter are still in jail; even the band that entertained the protests are still locked up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p7HjjJXUHM

Malmesbury

YBarddCwsc said:

Malmesbury said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Ukraine has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Ukraine should pick the least bad option now.

And NATO should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Ukraine believes the West will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

The only practical way of ending the conflict quickly is to give Russia a way to climb down.

This is not attractive to those who see the war as a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Darkness (which is almost 80 per cent of pb.com).

Russia has a number of options: they are either unpalatable, or disastrous, or cataclysmic, or world-ending.

The correct thing to do is to choose the unpalatable (as the Czechs did in 1968).

Russia should pick the least bad option now.

And China should make it clear that it will not intervene militarily. If Russia believes the East will come to their aid, they will never make the unpalatable choice & more of their country will be destroyed.

Because nothing lasts forever, and eventually Putin will be gone. And the unpalatable choice can be re-visited.

Because Prague finally did get its spring and its summer in 1989.

The difference is that the war is being fought in Ukraine.

It is Ukraine that is being razed to the ground. It is Ukrainians who are fleeing their country (and of course many will never return).

For sure, Russia faces serious problems.

But, it is Ukraine that is being turned into a charnel house.

The sanctions will be killing Russians already - the state support setup there is quite thin.

If the sanctions are carried on for a period of months, they will kill quite a lot of people.

HYUFD

Starmer goes to Estonia to meet with British forces stationed there and show support for NATO allies

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1501829854517514241?s=20&t=-9546bFtfoqzzHeMOJBTfQ

turbotubbs

tlg86 said:

TalkSPORT saying only season ticket holders can go to Stamford Bridge.

That puts them in breach of the away allocation rule, so they should be expelled from the league.

Popcorn time.

Big_G_NorthWales

This is important as it signals a split between Lukashenko and Putin

Lukashenko orders Belarusian specialists to ensure power supply to Chernobyl plant

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko has instructed Belarusian specialists to ensure power supply to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the BelTA news agency has reported.

Yesterday, Ukraine warned there was a danger of a radiation leak at Chernobyl after electricity was cut off, but the UN nuclear watchdog saw "no critical impact on security".

Russia accused Ukrainian forces of attacking power lines and a substation feeding the power plant.

Nigel_Foremain

CarlottaVance said:

Martin Lewis on R4 making interesting point that government may be trying to shift discussion on “cost of living crisis” by suggesting it’s “for Ukraine” - where all the Ukraine war has done is exacerbated the crisis already in place.

Johnson is quite lucky with his ability to hide his incompetence behind events. How long will that luck last I wonder

Northstar

Nigelb said:

Northstar said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

we need to purposefully rearm and re-equip armed forces that are fit for the modern age. The PM won't do that as witnessed by his astonishing row with Tobias Ellwood at the select committee meeting about tanks.

Interesting. A(nother) strategic defence review. Where do you see the UK in terms of its global military role and where would your focus be for this rearmament.

If we face a new cold war then our "cold war is over lets be ready for The War Against Terror" stance is no longer fit for the future. I listen to people like Tobias Ellwood who know first hand what we need. He told the PM and the Big Dog just mocked the Lieutenant Colonel.

Since when are Lieutenant Colonels masters of military strategy. They get a battalion; hardly the big picture at Sevastopol.

And if he came straight from a coffee with CGS of course he is agitating for a new cold war approach. It is a General's dream. As much money as they want and all for a war they will never fight.

He clearly know more than the Big Dog.

About what? Polishing 1 RGJ mess silver? Johnson has to weigh the competing elements and interests of the country to determine whether he thinks we should expand our military and for what purposes and what role HMF should or is likely to occupy in the years ahead. It's MLRS vs new hospitals.

If Ellwood is simply a channel for the General Staff to lobby Johnson for more spending on tanks and guns then that's fine. But it is a small part of the big picture. It might be right "today" (and might not be) but so what.

The other daft thing about any ‘re-arming’ debate is that in terms of conventional force (tanks troops missiles planes etc) Russia has proved itself woefully inadequate vs Ukraine. So if ‘re-arming’ means increasing our spend on those things, it does seem like just a way to funnel money to pet projects with no real value.

Cheap drones, better cyberwarfare capabilities, and of course even more investment in human intelligence all seem like better priorities.

The first part of re-arming would be buying more ordnance for the non obsolete expensive kit that we do have. In any conventional war we're likely to be directly involved in, that means medium and long range missiles for Typhoons and F35s, and likewise for the navy.
A Typhoon carrying a full complement of longer range air to air missiles is massively more effective than two Typhoons carrying a couple each, for example. It's a relatively easy and cost effective way to make the most of what we have, quickly and without protracted debate.

More tanks would be some way down my list. Bringing forward the purchase of the Korean self-propelled 155mm artillery would probably be more cost effective.

That’s a great point about adequate munitions - seems like a big part of Russian underperformance has been having the kit but not the fuel/ammo/training to make effective use of it.

You’d like to think the UK is on top of things like that but I guess that may be optimistic!

Nigel_Foremain

OldKingCole said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the Government and his asserts - including Chelsea Football Club - have been frozen"
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1501847597140660226

Plenty of people in Norfolk will wonder whether that'll make a difference tonight.

Why Norfolk specifically?

LostPassword

.

algarkirk said:

JACK_W said:

@Scott_P .. @TOPPING .. @YBarddCwsc ..

Your fear of Putin allows him to roll up Ukraine. Next Finland, Sweden, Moldova and Georgia. At some stage Putin will have to be stopped. If you are not prepared to will the military means to do so then we are lost. You have no red lines just appeasing the Russian dictator.

NATO has exactly one clear red line. Article 5. Since 1948 it has never been crossed. The suggestion that their red line should be changed has lots of support from policy wonks, institutes and of course keyboard warriors. But I don't think there is a single major party in a NATO country who support it.

They may all be wrong, but they are not all dim. For example SKS 100% supports USA and Boris on this matter.

It is obvious (I think) that if the nuclear issue were not on the table we would have intervened. So I think we should draw clear inferences.

In Gulf War I the red line crossed was the sovereign international boundary of Kuwait.

Article 5 of the NATO charter is not the only red line in existence.

tlg86

5Live saying that the government is doing what it can to keep Chelsea playing.