Russia's negotiator Slutsky says there's been "significant progress in the negotiations" and he expects there may be a signed deal in the next 2 to 3 days. https://ria.ru/20220313/progress-1777935859.html This is a notable development in light of the growing awareness at the Kremlin of the decrepit state of the RU army & the blunders of the pre-invasion intel. If confirmed by UA side, this would likely mean a truce on Zelenskys' terms.
I will be interested to see what the Russian side tries to hang on the agreement - sanction lifted, of course. Probably a demand that Nord Stream 2 is started up....
Russia's negotiator Slutsky says there's been "significant progress in the negotiations" and he expects there may be a signed deal in the next 2 to 3 days. https://ria.ru/20220313/progress-1777935859.html This is a notable development in light of the growing awareness at the Kremlin of the decrepit state of the RU army & the blunders of the pre-invasion intel. If confirmed by UA side, this would likely mean a truce on Zelenskys' terms.
“To clarify. At the negotiations, the RF not putting ultimatums, but carefully listens to our proposals. 🇺🇦 will not give up any of the positions. Our demands are - the end of the war and the withdrawal of RF troops. I see the understanding and there is a dialogue.”
Russia's negotiator Slutsky says there's been "significant progress in the negotiations" and he expects there may be a signed deal in the next 2 to 3 days. https://ria.ru/20220313/progress-1777935859.html This is a notable development in light of the growing awareness at the Kremlin of the decrepit state of the RU army & the blunders of the pre-invasion intel. If confirmed by UA side, this would likely mean a truce on Zelenskys' terms.
That will really piss off their base, no wonder Farage has pivoted to net zero is bollocks manta.
Not necessarily, if clothed in the security language of the article and accompanied in a boost to defence. “Accept a shit view to beat the Russians” will appeal to some Tories.
I'm unconvinced by that. People are really angry right now about Russia, and perhaps that will be more sustained than usual, but ultimately people really really really really don't like things being built near their nice villages.
It seems much mroe likely to me that people would agree with proposal, up to the point it happens near them. I'm all fo rit, but there are plenty of better sites somewhere else, will be the cry.
A good rule of thumb, even if you are not generally against NIMBY's as a concept, is that there are none so unreasonable in the face of development proposals as those who live in the rural shires. I've long since ceased being surprised what they will object to.
Fair. Depressing, but fair.
Pay rent to the shire landlords for placing the windmills on their land. That'll win them over.
Landowners love wind farms. They get paid a rent and get to use about 95% of the land for other things.....
It is quite noticeable that in Texas they are more popular than having the pump jacks. Oil can make a mess of the land, runs out etc etc. The wind money rolls in much more smoothly. Apart from the odd freeze up, of course.
I remember reading, many years ago, that the folk charged with getting take-up of wind farms in Texas were taking advantage of their competitive natures. Along the lines of :
Wind Farm Guy: Wow - good to see you've got 20 turbines installed! Texan Dude: Yup - great, aren't they? WFG: Did you know Jim over in the next ranch is putting in 50 turbines? TD: What? F**k Jim! I'm going to put in 100! ... WFG: 50 turbines! Good going Jim! Jim: Yup - great aren't they? WFG: Did you hear Jack over in the next ranch is putting in 100 turbines? Jim: What? F**k Jack! I'm going to put in....
That will really piss off their base, no wonder Farage has pivoted to net zero is bollocks manta.
Not necessarily, if clothed in the security language of the article and accompanied in a boost to defence. “Accept a shit view to beat the Russians” will appeal to some Tories.
I'm unconvinced by that. People are really angry right now about Russia, and perhaps that will be more sustained than usual, but ultimately people really really really really don't like things being built near their nice villages.
It seems much mroe likely to me that people would agree with proposal, up to the point it happens near them. I'm all fo rit, but there are plenty of better sites somewhere else, will be the cry.
A good rule of thumb, even if you are not generally against NIMBY's as a concept, is that there are none so unreasonable in the face of development proposals as those who live in the rural shires. I've long since ceased being surprised what they will object to.
Fair. Depressing, but fair.
Pay rent to the shire landlords for placing the windmills on their land. That'll win them over.
Landowners love wind farms. They get paid a rent and get to use about 95% of the land for other things.....
It is quite noticeable that in Texas they are more popular than having the pump jacks. Oil can make a mess of the land, runs out etc etc. The wind money rolls in much more smoothly. Apart from the odd freeze up, of course.
Will they keep my lawn mown if they can have a quiet corner?
Now I have a vision of you plugging your electric mower into a 200 meter tall wind turbine.... in the corner of a suburban garden.
Russia's negotiator Slutsky says there's been "significant progress in the negotiations" and he expects there may be a signed deal in the next 2 to 3 days. https://ria.ru/20220313/progress-1777935859.html This is a notable development in light of the growing awareness at the Kremlin of the decrepit state of the RU army & the blunders of the pre-invasion intel. If confirmed by UA side, this would likely mean a truce on Zelenskys' terms.
Whatever happened to the Belarus invasion? False report? Mutiny? Still hasn't barked.
I was wondering that, a few possibility's:
a) Its happened, some Belarusian forces are in Ukraine, but keeping, bit nil Publicity. b) Its about to happen, just not on the predicted timescale. c) it was never going to happen, but was all to put presser on the Ukrainians, by tying up forces on the boarder. d) The Belarus dictator had to agree to it while he was in Moscow, to avoid being detained! but had no intention of invading e) Its been ordered, but ether the generals or the men seed no way! and he is now busy suppressing a mutiny/rebellion.
I think c) is the most likely situation, but happy who knows?
It would be even more if HMG give @MarqueeMark his Swansea Bay barrage.
I am also quite content to look out of my windows and see 1,000 wind turbines in the Bristol Channel
Swansea is the test-bed - powers a mere 150,000 homes. The prize is the lagoons built after that - Cardiff lagoon would power 1.6m homes. As would half a dozen others. The (admittedly, more technically challenging) Bridgewater lagoon would be nearer to 3m homes.
A million here, a million there - soon you are talking serious numbers....
I love the idea, but have no idea how practical/economic it would be, do we have a cost estimate? and/or know how expensive the electricity would be? I've not heard of any large scale versions being built elsewhere or am I wrong?
The Cardiff-type lagoons would cost c.£7.5bn (versus £24bn for Hinkley C). The power output is almost identical. The price of the electricity is in the range £50-£55 (versus £92.50 for Hinkley C). The abandonment costs are negligible (and in 120++ years) (versus god knows how many billions for Hinkley C in supposedly 60 years - but they rarely seem to last their projected life before "cracks" are found in the structure).
The current projected costs of Hinkley C will have at least tripled by the time it is commissioned.
If your projected costs were to triple you are still under the initial Hinkley C projection.
The problem we have through the prism of the Ukraine crisis of course are those we now have laughing at Germany's reliance on Russian gas after the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. And they are already on the "to ensure the security and self sufficiency of our energy needs we need to build nuclear power stations, commission the Cambo oil field and frack for shale gas like fury" bandwagon.
I say on energy self sufficiency in @MarqueeMark we should trust. (I'm not too keen on his Johnsonian politics but on sustainable energy he is on the money).
So the British title holders meet the Belgians….Focus from Selby are going to have to push their changeovers here….
Very close on the first three legs but the Belgian’s faster dog sneaked it on the final leg. And yet another course record falls - its now 14.71 seconds!!
False start by the Runners - Focus just have to finish clean.
And it’s one apiece! The decider….
Slow start by the Belgians…but a fault by Focus….they pushed it and crossed the starting line early…the Belgians just need to finish clean, and they have.
The first European team to make the final at Crufts takes the trophy!
After the presentation, a break for everyone to refresh and eat before the evenings show climax….
Any thought on Best in Show? I know one candidate still to be decided, but the Yorkshire Terrier looked good.
The point about the article is that it posits, contrary to accepted PB wisdom, that there is an alternative situation and Russia is not suffering catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat. Or that there is a plan being executed.
People on here are furious about even thinking such s thing could be possible.
Fine - keep watching Twitter where every clip is proof if proof be needed of Russia's imminent military defeat. Much more comfortable that way.
Well in the end it comes down to the question of whether, as a layman which almost all of us here are, you believe the claims of Russia and their apologists or the Western Intelligence agencies. I know which side I find more believable.
Now I still think Russia will probably manage to take most of their pre-war targets so long as they were limited - I don't for example think it is now possible for them to even take, let alone hold, the whole of Ukraine. But all the evidence from those in the know seems to point to the fact they have suffered far heavier losses than expected, they still don't have control of the air and they are being bled so badly that any victory they achieve will definitely be Pyrrhic and will make it utterly impossible for them to hold any of their gains in the medium to long term.
You seem to disagree with that (at least that is what your postings have always intimated) but the only way to argue against that is to say that all the Western assessments are wrong and that the Pro-Russian commentators are right.
I see no reason to accept that argument.
That's fair enough. My gut feel is that Russia having launched the invasion has a plan somewhere and nothing I have seen so far has shown this to have demonstrably failed. That is just a gut feel and hence informs my caution when people on here post a 30-second video of two T-72s doing a pirouette on some street somewhere and taking that as proof of an imminent Russian defeat.
But I also from Day One said that if Russia does occupy the whole of Ukraine then we are back to an Afghan situation and that seems absolutely bonkers but then perhaps Putin is absolutely bonkers. Because if nothing else we all know how that ended.
As for not control of the air I think that article was interesting both on Ukraine and Russia air power limitations (he asks for example about the famous and untouched Russian convoy). I have no idea why it wasn't targeted but it wasn't. He also poses some other interesting questions which contradict the PB orthodoxy and hence why everyone is furious at me for posting it and calling it "my article".
It is a very strange phenomenon on PB but perhaps not surprising, given PB's nature.
Most of pb.com's analysis of the origins of the war seems to have all the subtlety of George's diagnosis of the causes of the First World War.
Lieutenant George St Barlaigh: The war started because of the Villainous Hun and his Empire Building. Captain Edmund Blackadder: George, the British Empire presently covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consist of a small sausage factory in Tangyanika.
Most of pb.com's analysis of the progress of the war seems to be equally primitive.
Lieutenant George St Barlaigh: When are we going to give Fritz a taste of our British spunk?
The German military thought process at the start of WWI was quite interesting
1) If we don't invaded Belgium, we can't successfully attack France. 2) Therefore we must invaded Belgium. 3) Britain won't interfere, because if they do we might lose the war.
They actually got to the stage of believing that since violating Belgium neutrality was vital to Germany winning the war, it was a crime for Belgium to resist.
The sane thing would have been to consider (1). If it was impossible to invaded France across only the Franco-German frontier, the reverse was true - especially for the smaller French army.
Goodness, that's one of the worst takes on the early stages of WW1 I've seen in a long while. The fact that the French army was 8/9ths the size of the German one pales into total irrelevance considering Germany would have been fighting in two opposite directions at once. Unless you think an army of fish would attack France from the Atlantic side?
Russia's negotiator Slutsky says there's been "significant progress in the negotiations" and he expects there may be a signed deal in the next 2 to 3 days. https://ria.ru/20220313/progress-1777935859.html This is a notable development in light of the growing awareness at the Kremlin of the decrepit state of the RU army & the blunders of the pre-invasion intel. If confirmed by UA side, this would likely mean a truce on Zelenskys' terms.
I will be interested to see what the Russian side tries to hang on the agreement - sanction lifted, of course. Probably a demand that Nord Stream 2 is started up....
Can a Russian/Ukrainian peace deal put conditions on the external parties who have got sanctions on them? I mean, it could, but it's pretty unworkable, isn't it?
TL;DR we don't know much but what we do know doesn't necessarily align with Western media reports.
He makes some good points. Lot of "I told you so", which is always irritating if somone else does it, especially when he got his core prediction wrong - that Putin wouldn't invade. FWIW I suspect he underestimates: firstly the degree to which Putin has failed in his war aim of dealing with the "Ukraine Problem", which makes any negotiation difficult for him; secondly that Ukrainian nationalism is a thing in East Ukraine, which would make it difficult for Russia to occupy that part of Ukraine as well.
I'm no military strategist, but even I can see the existential risk to the Ukrainian army (green squares) on this map. The Russians can head north from Crimea and cut off the bulk of the Ukrainian Army (the green squares) and grab all of east Ukraine including Kharkiv and possibly Kyiv. I don't see an equivalent risk to the Russian positions. Of course the Russians haven't done this yet and hopefully never will.
Comments
“To clarify. At the negotiations, the RF not putting ultimatums, but carefully listens to our proposals. 🇺🇦 will not give up any of the positions. Our demands are - the end of the war and the withdrawal of RF troops. I see the understanding and there is a dialogue.”
https://twitter.com/podolyak_m/status/1502982017667026945?s=21
🙏🙏🙏🙏
"Этой украинской власти нельзя верить. Ото всего отрекутся."
"This Ukrainian authority cannot be trusted. Everything will be disowned."
Wind Farm Guy: Wow - good to see you've got 20 turbines installed!
Texan Dude: Yup - great, aren't they?
WFG: Did you know Jim over in the next ranch is putting in 50 turbines?
TD: What? F**k Jim! I'm going to put in 100!
...
WFG: 50 turbines! Good going Jim!
Jim: Yup - great aren't they?
WFG: Did you hear Jack over in the next ranch is putting in 100 turbines?
Jim: What? F**k Jack! I'm going to put in....
Bow out now, before the Russian economy collapses. Minimise losses. Get sanctions lifted. Putin survives
NEW THREAD
a) Its happened, some Belarusian forces are in Ukraine, but keeping, bit nil Publicity.
b) Its about to happen, just not on the predicted timescale.
c) it was never going to happen, but was all to put presser on the Ukrainians, by tying up forces on the boarder.
d) The Belarus dictator had to agree to it while he was in Moscow, to avoid being detained! but had no intention of invading
e) Its been ordered, but ether the generals or the men seed no way! and he is now busy suppressing a mutiny/rebellion.
I think c) is the most likely situation, but happy who knows?
If your projected costs were to triple you are still under the initial Hinkley C projection.
The problem we have through the prism of the Ukraine crisis of course are those we now have laughing at Germany's reliance on Russian gas after the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. And they are already on the "to ensure the security and self sufficiency of our energy needs we need to build nuclear power stations, commission the Cambo oil field and frack for shale gas like fury" bandwagon.
I say on energy self sufficiency in @MarqueeMark we should trust. (I'm not too keen on his Johnsonian politics but on sustainable energy he is on the money).
I can't see much of a market yet.
The fact that the French army was 8/9ths the size of the German one pales into total irrelevance considering Germany would have been fighting in two opposite directions at once.
Unless you think an army of fish would attack France from the Atlantic side?
Was that one of his anticipated outcomes ?