Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
I have a Ukrainian work connection, and she is with her family in Warsaw, because she wants to go back to Kyiv and to rebuild her life after the war.
Indeed. Unless you already have family/friends in the UK, to flee the war in Ukraine and then come all the way to Britain is an indication that you don't expect to go back soon, if ever.
This is not going to be true of that many Ukrainian refugees, tho we should obviously make any that do want to come as welcome as possible
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
This is of course true, refugees nearly always end up mostly in neighbouring countries, and go where they have friends and family. There are some Ukrainians with friends and family in the UK, but not many. But this is also why, had Boris been paying attention on day 1, there would have been minimal downside to gently explaining to his Home Secretary that on this occasion she needed to play a different record.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
I have a Ukrainian work connection, and she is with her family in Warsaw, because she wants to go back to Kyiv and to rebuild her life after the war.
Indeed. Unless you already have family/friends in the UK, to flee the war in Ukraine and then come all the way to Britain is an indication that you don't expect to go back soon, if ever.
This is not going to be true of that many Ukrainian refugees, tho we should obviously make any that do want to come as welcome as possible
And on that ecumenical note, goodnight
I'm not sure that's *quite* true. The reality is that Poland is going to be struggling to house all the refugees. Your preference might be an apartment with your family in Poland, but if it's five to a room there, or more space in the UK, then (especially if you have children), you're probably willing to make the trip.
Good article, even if poking fun at the absurdities of the extreme left (or right for that matter) feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
And why are the left so obsessed with American "imperialism", when, with a couple of exceptions (the Phillippines) it was the first non-imperial great power in history, at any rate once it had dispossessed its own natives, and in fact hugely undermined the European colonial empires?
I think this is a remarkably naive view of the scope, range, and pervasiveness of American power in the world today. It's not just the military bases that exist in over a hundred countries but also the economic power that America holds over much of the world. States have to account for American foreign policy in the pursuit of their own domestic policy, and states that have displeased America regimes have had a range of responses from Washington including threats, assassinations, sanctions, terror attacks, invasion and outright overthrow. Territories directly administered by Washington tend to be relatively small but they do exist, which is why traditional conceptions of imperial modes tends to be disapplied, but the concept of empire as historically been fluid anyway. An example is that the late Roman republic was very clearly imperial prior to the time that we tend to talk of the fall of the republic midway through Augustus's reign. What's in a name? Did it really matter that much to the people of Gaul that the system of foreign rule changed from republic to cryptomonarchy?
The people of Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Japan, Haiti and many more know that American influence extends as far as the constraint of sovereign choices.
So a sensible conversation about the nature of imperialism is probably overdue. It's true that some on the left reflexively reject American power and that is a shame. But it's no worse than the unthinking welcoming of America's influence as benign and positive for the subjects of its hard and soft power. It is by no means foolish to think of America as an empire, if one only qualifies that with a level-headed description of what imperialism looks like these days.
The left critique of American foreign policy is considerably better grounded than Fishing wants to portray and has a wealth of factual content that ought to make anybody think twice about what limits it places on us. If a competent Trumpist leader took control of the USA, it might be a bit of a shock to the soft-conservative-liberal parts of this country for whom American sits firmly in a blind spot.
Good article, even if poking fun at the absurdities of the extreme left (or right for that matter) feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
And why are the left so obsessed with American "imperialism", when, with a couple of exceptions (the Phillippines) it was the first non-imperial great power in history, at any rate once it had dispossessed its own natives, and in fact hugely undermined the European colonial empires?
I think this is a remarkably naive view of the scope, range, and pervasiveness of American power in the world today. It's not just the military bases that exist in over a hundred countries but also the economic power that America holds over much of the world. States have to account for American foreign policy in the pursuit of their own domestic policy, and states that have displeased America regimes have had a range of responses from Washington including threats, assassinations, sanctions, terror attacks, invasion and outright overthrow. Territories directly administered by Washington tend to be relatively small but they do exist, which is why traditional conceptions of imperial modes tends to be disapplied, but the concept of empire as historically been fluid anyway. An example is that the late Roman republic was very clearly imperial prior to the time that we tend to talk of the fall of the republic midway through Augustus's reign. What's in a name? Did it really matter that much to the people of Gaul that the system of foreign rule changed from republic to cryptomonarchy?
The people of Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Japan, Haiti and many more know that American influence extends as far as the constraint of sovereign choices.
So a sensible conversation about the nature of imperialism is probably overdue. It's true that some on the left reflexively reject American power and that is a shame. But it's no worse than the unthinking welcoming of America's influence as benign and positive for the subjects of its hard and soft power. It is by no means foolish to think of America as an empire, if one only qualifies that with a level-headed description of what imperialism looks like these days.
The left critique of American foreign policy is considerably better grounded than Fishing wants to portray and has a wealth of factual content that ought to make anybody think twice about what limits it places on us. If a competent Trumpist leader took control of the USA, it might be a bit of a shock to the soft-conservative-liberal parts of this country for whom American sits firmly in a blind spot.
Far too wordy. Try this instead:
Would you want America to have the power it does if its regime were radically and malignly different?
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
I have a Ukrainian work connection, and she is with her family in Warsaw, because she wants to go back to Kyiv and to rebuild her life after the war.
Indeed. Unless you already have family/friends in the UK, to flee the war in Ukraine and then come all the way to Britain is an indication that you don't expect to go back soon, if ever.
This is not going to be true of that many Ukrainian refugees, tho we should obviously make any that do want to come as welcome as possible
And on that ecumenical note, goodnight
I'm not sure that's *quite* true. The reality is that Poland is going to be struggling to house all the refugees. Your preference might be an apartment with your family in Poland, but if it's five to a room there, or more space in the UK, then (especially if you have children), you're probably willing to make the trip.
They will prefer countries nearer Ukraine with bigger Ukrainian communities, all else being equal. That means every big EU country will probably be preferred to the UK, which is the furthest away and has few Ukrainians. Tho I suppose you could argue our relatively healthy job market, and the English language, might be a pull
I do wonder if we will fill our 150,000 rooms. Of course if the war drags on for years/gets even worse, anything could happen
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Er, possible slight overreaction?
Yes, I think a few people were telling you that some hours ago! Glad it's sunk in.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Er, possible slight overreaction?
Yes, I think a few people were telling you that some hours ago! Glad it's sunk in.
With me, there’s always a chance I might ACTUALLY go mad one day. So you should save the accusation for that moment
By the way I liked your ‘wordy’ critique of America, and I agree with much of it. Many countries around the world can see the hypocrisy of the USA complaining about other nations using bombs and bullets, when the USA itself is so often violently belligerent. And I’ve said on here many times that, one day, America’s extremely questionable use of drones for extra-judicial executions would come back to haunt it, when other countries felt strong enough to do the same. See Salisbury
Trouble is the Stop the War left take it all too far, and America becomes ENTIRELY evil, which is nonsense. And then you end up with the bizarre spectacle of lefties excusing Russia just because it’s not America or is anti-America
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Er, possible slight overreaction?
Yes, I think a few people were telling you that some hours ago! Glad it's sunk in.
With me, there’s always a chance I might ACTUALLY go mad one day. So you should save the accusation for that moment..
If you find that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric unpleasant - which it is - you might consider how often you use it yourself.
It’s a truism that time isn’t on Russia’s side. It’s not entirely in Ukraine’s, though. A World Food Programme (WFP) official said on Friday that food supply chains in Ukraine were collapsing, with a portion of infrastructure destroyed and many grocery stores and warehouses now empty. Jakob Kern, WFP emergency coordinator for the Ukraine crisis, also expressed concern about the situation in “encircled cities” such as Mariupol.… (Guardian)
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Er, possible slight overreaction?
Yes, I think a few people were telling you that some hours ago! Glad it's sunk in.
With me, there’s always a chance I might ACTUALLY go mad one day. So you should save the accusation for that moment..
If you find that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric unpleasant - which it is - you might consider how often you use it yourself.
I really don’t mind hysterical vitriol. Sometimes I dish it out, as you aver
It’s generally self-limiting. If you regularly go over the top, the impact diminishes. Who really minds a @malcolmg turnip rant?
Two years is an awfully long time in politics and Ukraine probably won't feature highly in the GE campaigns but the stench of corrupt Russian money is part of the bigger picture of a party which is corrupt and rotten to its core.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
Besides, I saw the number of troops as essentially irrelevant, for a few reasons:
*) He did not use too many troops on his previous adventures, and he won them. *) He expected Ukraine not to fight too hard. *) He has given the order. He expects the men he's sent to do their jobs. His will is law.
Unfortunately, he has found his 'will' has met up with a stronger one: that of the Ukrainian people, and of the world as a whole. Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind.
I am genuinely surprised that the bounce for the government, in response to the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wasn't larger. It doesn't seem to be any greater than what you would expect simply from the negative partygate stories about the government disappearing from the news.
I would guess that this means the British public as a whole do not feel viscerally threatened by war in Ukraine, which has implications for their willingness to make sacrifices to fund increased defence expenditure.
I may be missing some context not being there but I'm not sure who's supposed to be impressed by the British government's response. They had *one job* which was to apply sanctions to Russian assets in London and they seem to be totally failing? Then there's letting in refugees, which also simultaneously mean and incompetent. Most other western governments seem to be rising to the occasion, and the British aren't.
You can definitely get a rally-around-the-leader effect when there's a crisis but it does require at least a bare minimum of leadership.
Yes you are missing a lot.....e.g. the Ukrainians successes in targeting the Russian supply lines are down in a large part to the Ukrainian SoF. The UK (mostly SAS) trained them for the past 7 years and are armed with British equipment. I wouldn't say singlehandedly, but they are literally running around the countryside in small groups making mincemeat of Russian conveys day in, day out.
The Germans in comparison sent some party hats and some Soviet era military equipment from a warehouse in Eastern Germany that had gone mouldy and doesn't work.
The EU also kept selling arms to the Russians even after a supposed ban.
In terms of sanctions, the most hard hitting ones aren't the ones the media bang on about. There are a lot of things that the UK / US have done that really hit Russian and Russian businesses, much more than seizing a boat or a house. Grabbing a yacht looks good, but it is a bit like when the stop a drugs shipment and show all the bags of coke, you haven't actually got the real source.
The slowness of Refugees is legitimate criticism. Poland is taking the massive weight on dealing with that for everybody else at the moment.
You’re missing that Operation Orbital was a coalition government initiative, that has simply continued under this government. The best you can say is that Johnson, despite his Russian connections, didn’t interfere with it, but then other events have usefully kept him busy.
Yes, the current government is providing anti-tank weapons, but so are others, and some in larger quantities. Other than that, Edmund is right that the current government’s response has been underwhelming, since publicity and lots of Instagram pics don’t count as achievements.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
There’s something in that. But Leon is conflating criticism of the government and its policies with doing down the country, which irks me more.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
Aren’t you supposed to be the pro-Russian person talked about on here. Hence, are you talking about Russia or the U.K.?
Two years is an awfully long time in politics and Ukraine probably won't feature highly in the GE campaigns but the stench of corrupt Russian money is part of the bigger picture of a party which is corrupt and rotten to its core.
Labour will win.
Oddly enough, my friend who is very much on Russia's side in this mess is a Corbynite peacenik. Also look at the RMT's links with Russia.
The left and right extremes meet in the middle.
Besides, I can image that it's quite hard for a Russian to accept the evil that is being done in the name of their country. It takes a lot of effort for many people to shift from 'we are the good guys' to 'we are the bad guys'.
Two years is an awfully long time in politics and Ukraine probably won't feature highly in the GE campaigns but the stench of corrupt Russian money is part of the bigger picture of a party which is corrupt and rotten to its core.
Labour will win.
Oddly enough, my friend who is very much on Russia's side in this mess is a Corbynite peacenik. Also look at the RMT's links with Russia.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
But that is not what I said. I said that Britain does not love itself enough. Not that it is great at everything.
And no need for the supercilious 'when you immerse yourself in other cultures' thing.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
Aren’t you supposed to be the pro-Russian person talked about on here. Hence, are you talking about Russia or the U.K.?
Funnily enough, Russia is one of the few countries I've never visited.
I loathe Vladimir Putin. I'm the only person on here who thinks we should back Zelensky and install a No Fly Zone and stand up to Putin.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
Aren’t you supposed to be the pro-Russian person talked about on here. Hence, are you talking about Russia or the U.K.?
Funnily enough, Russia is one of the few countries I've never visited.
I loathe Vladimir Putin. I'm the only person on here who thinks we should back Zelensky and install a No Fly Zone and stand up to Putin.
I hear St Petersburg is wonderful and I have a lot of respect for Russians as individuals.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
Aren’t you supposed to be the pro-Russian person talked about on here. Hence, are you talking about Russia or the U.K.?
Funnily enough, Russia is one of the few countries I've never visited.
I loathe Vladimir Putin. I'm the only person on here who thinks we should back Zelensky and install a No Fly Zone and stand up to Putin.
I hear St Petersburg is wonderful and I have a lot of respect for Russians as individuals.
AS74🇱🇹🇺🇦 @AS7404542949 «Россия может начать открытую массовую мобилизацию из-за потерь в Украине и ввести на территории РФ военное положение, предварительно проведя провокацию с гибелью мирного населения РФ», — Генштаб в утренней сводке Translated “Russia can start an open mass mobilization due to losses in Ukraine and introduce martial law on the territory of the Russian Federation, having previously carried out a provocation with the death of the civilian population of the Russian Federation,” the General Staff in the morning summary
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
But that is not what I said. I said that Britain does not love itself enough. Not that it is great at everything.
And no need for the supercilious 'when you immerse yourself in other cultures' thing.
Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you personally. But, as I'm sure you know, expats can live in their own ghettos and are frequently far removed from immersive cross-cultural life.
I've lived off grid, as we would now term it, and eaten entirely local non-western food for years at a time, fluent in other languages, wearing local clothes etc. etc.. Gone native: which is a fairly perilous term but you get the gist.
I love other countries and cultures and realise that there is good and bad in all peoples and places. The UK has its good points and its bad points. Misplaced arrogance is possibly its most bemusing failure but there are plenty of others.
Pretty short notice to find a replacement coach to go to Paris tonight..
Victor Kovalenko @MrKovalenko The #Ukraine Army claims that they eliminated the fifth in a row Russian General - a commander of the 8th Rus. Army of the South region Lt. Gen. Andrey Mordvichev. He was eliminated in #Chornobaivka township near #Kherson city airport. https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1504945518115532806
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
But that is not what I said. I said that Britain does not love itself enough. Not that it is great at everything.
And no need for the supercilious 'when you immerse yourself in other cultures' thing.
Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you personally. But, as I'm sure you know, expats can live in their own ghettos and are frequently far removed from immersive cross-cultural life.
I've lived off grid, as we would now term it, and eaten entirely local non-western food for years at a time, fluent in other languages, wearing local clothes etc. etc.. Gone native: which is a fairly perilous term but you get the gist.
I love other countries and cultures and realise that there is good and bad in all peoples and places. The UK has its good points and its bad points. Misplaced arrogance is possibly its most bemusing failure but there are plenty of others.
Also speak multiple languages, and have not worked or socialized with Brits really since 1999. My main contact with things Britain and British these days are my infrequent trips home to see family, and PB.
Great updated Telegraph piece on Elon Musk's Starlink assistance to Ukraine drone operators.
"In the vanguard of Ukraine's astonishingly effective military effort against Vladimir Putin's forces is a unit called Aerorozvidka (Aerial Reconnaissance) which is using surveillance and attack drones to target Russian tanks and positions.
Amid internet and power outages, which are expected to get worse, Ukraine is turning to the newly available Starlink system for some of its communications."
Pretty short notice to find a replacement coach to go to Paris tonight..
Victor Kovalenko @MrKovalenko The #Ukraine Army claims that they eliminated the fifth in a row Russian General - a commander of the 8th Rus. Army of the South region Lt. Gen. Andrey Mordvichev. He was eliminated in #Chornobaivka township near #Kherson city airport. https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1504945518115532806
Geolocation from insecure signals has been mooted as to why this keeps happening.
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
Pretty short notice to find a replacement coach to go to Paris tonight..
Victor Kovalenko @MrKovalenko The #Ukraine Army claims that they eliminated the fifth in a row Russian General - a commander of the 8th Rus. Army of the South region Lt. Gen. Andrey Mordvichev. He was eliminated in #Chornobaivka township near #Kherson city airport. https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1504945518115532806
Geolocation from insecure signals has been mooted as to why this keeps happening.
Seems obvious.
The Russian war effort will be reduced to sending pencil notes....
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week. Firstly, their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc are fighting for their land and they don't want to be the other side of Europe away from them, and also Slavic nations are much closer to what is home, the language, the culture, etc.
However, that means Poland are going to need vast amounts of help.
Yes, we should probably be focussing our aid on Poland (and other frontline countries) rather than this lefty whining which is, ironically, all focused on ourselves and our *lack of compassion* or whatever.
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
It's one of the things that, as a British expatriate most of my life (starting from 11 months old), ironically I most hate about Britain - that it doesn't love itself enough.
I've lived much of my life abroad and I feel the opposite.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
But that is not what I said. I said that Britain does not love itself enough. Not that it is great at everything.
And no need for the supercilious 'when you immerse yourself in other cultures' thing.
Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you personally. But, as I'm sure you know, expats can live in their own ghettos and are frequently far removed from immersive cross-cultural life.
I've lived off grid, as we would now term it, and eaten entirely local non-western food for years at a time, fluent in other languages, wearing local clothes etc. etc.. Gone native: which is a fairly perilous term but you get the gist.
I love other countries and cultures and realise that there is good and bad in all peoples and places. The UK has its good points and its bad points. Misplaced arrogance is possibly its most bemusing failure but there are plenty of others.
Also speak multiple languages, and have not worked or socialized with Brits really since 1999. My main contact with things Britain and British these days are my infrequent trips home to see family, and PB.
Double apologies then. Truly.
I guess I get a bit fed up when people think Britain is great when I see greatness in other places. And I have an antipathy to our colonial past and the way it is, and more importantly isn't, taught in schools.
There's still lots that's lovely about Britain. I guess. The Western Highlands is ("are"?) one of my favourite places on earth. Though maybe not at the fag end of November.
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
But yours shows something slightly different? What's the backstory to the image, may I ask?
It's a bit of graffiti I think from Ukraine that I saw a picture of on twitter. It's blue and yellow man with club (Ukraine) chasing fleeing, flailing red swastika man (Russia).
I thought it was quite cool for an avatar, but turned out I was a day or two behind Carlotta in adopting it so I've been meaning to replace it..
I am genuinely surprised that the bounce for the government, in response to the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wasn't larger. It doesn't seem to be any greater than what you would expect simply from the negative partygate stories about the government disappearing from the news.
I would guess that this means the British public as a whole do not feel viscerally threatened by war in Ukraine, which has implications for their willingness to make sacrifices to fund increased defence expenditure.
I may be missing some context not being there but I'm not sure who's supposed to be impressed by the British government's response. They had *one job* which was to apply sanctions to Russian assets in London and they seem to be totally failing? Then there's letting in refugees, which also simultaneously mean and incompetent. Most other western governments seem to be rising to the occasion, and the British aren't.
You can definitely get a rally-around-the-leader effect when there's a crisis but it does require at least a bare minimum of leadership.
Yep. And "oh god imagine if we had Corbyn" doesn't improve matters. The opposite really. He'd likely have done better on both those things.
If Britain has "failed to rise to the occasion" "unlike every other European country", as you two pitiful fucktards profess to believe, perhaps you could explain why, when Ukrainians - Ukrainians - are polled, Britain is the most favourably viewed foreign country and Boris Johnson is the most favourably viewed foreign leader?
"US pollster @cygnal has polled residents of Ukraine on their view of certain countries and leaders:"
"EU +42.2 Nato -16.8 UK +56 Biden +25.8 Johnson +49.6 Zelensky +79 Putin -86.7"
Morning all. Bright spring morning, the forecast is excellent and our local lower-league team is home today! Against the team from my boyhood home!
Following on from the 'greatness in other places' thought above. I've visited most parts of Britain (except NW Scotland) and travelled a bit (except S America) and most places have their positives, and very often strong ones.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
Morning all. Bright spring morning, the forecast is excellent and our local lower-league team is home today! Against the team from my boyhood home!
Following on from the 'greatness in other places' thought above. I've visited most parts of Britain (except NW Scotland) and travelled a bit (except S America) and most places have their positives, and very often strong ones.
Treat yourself to a trip to NW Scotland. Spoilt somewhat by the 500, but the scenery is outstanding in Caithness. Sandford Bay, just south of Cape Wrath, was Wainwright's favourite place in Britain, a man who you normally associate with Cumbria.
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
But yours shows something slightly different? What's the backstory to the image, may I ask?
It's a bit of graffiti I think from Ukraine that I saw a picture of on twitter. It's blue and yellow man with club (Ukraine) chasing fleeing, flailing red swastika man (Russia).
I thought it was quite cool for an avatar, but turned out I was a day or two behind Carlotta in adopting it so I've been meaning to replace it..
How about this one from Paris?
Cool. Thank you.
It's part of Putin's altered truth that he accuses Ukraine of Nazism.
Not, personally, sure applying the term or symbol back on Putin (however tempting) entirely works especially given the history of what happened in 1941.
But I write that with temerity lest that paragon of peace Marquee Mark seizes on it as a sign of pro-Putin sentiments. Sigh.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Christ alive, you spend hours clutching pearls about Woke things you've trawled up on the internet that you can barely find on Google, and then you have the brass neck to complain about people criticising the government for messing up when it affects vulnerable unaccompanied minors? Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
Morning all. Bright spring morning, the forecast is excellent and our local lower-league team is home today! Against the team from my boyhood home!
Following on from the 'greatness in other places' thought above. I've visited most parts of Britain (except NW Scotland) and travelled a bit (except S America) and most places have their positives, and very often strong ones.
Treat yourself to a trip to NW Scotland. Spoilt somewhat by the 500,
As you say, 'spoilt'. I would say, 'ruined': bumper to bumper in summer with motorhomes. Awful.
I much prefer ... actually I'm not going to say in case it becomes the next motoring swarm.
That does highlight one of my biggest bugbears with Britain. It's a very small place for the population and although it is still possible to get off the beaten track, it's getting harder and harder.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There's another difference, too. Due to the Nazi's treatment of ALL Slavs as sub-human the previously anti-Stalin population decided that the war could be treated as a Great Patriotic one and that they could and should fight the invaders. Putin's troops, I gather to their surprise, are finding that the local population, no matter what their first language, are bitterly opposed to them.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Re the refugee situation, there is early anecdotal evidence that the Ukrainians simply don't want to come here
Set Britain aside for a while. The EU is completely open, 3m refugees have flooded out, yet only 17,000 are in France, and about 12,000 in Spain
They are staying in the East where they can be near friends and family, still in Ukraine, and whence they hope to go home soon, if and when the war ends. This makes sense, these are not people who want to leave Ukraine, they have been displaced by war. They want to go back
150,000 places for refugees have been offered in UK homes. I seriously doubt if we will get 150,000 Ukrainians to fill them
Konstantin Kisin made this point last week.
There is, also, no large Ukrainian community in the UK, ready to welcome and assist them
Italy has a Ukrainian population of 230,000 Germany has 250,000 France has 220,000 Spain has 110,000 Poland has over 1 million (pre war) The UK? It has 20-30,000. It's tiny
A pre-existent community is always a major pull for foreign migrants. That simply does not exist in the UK. All this histrionic moral bleating about the UK not welcoming Ukrainians may be entirely misplaced, as things stands. They don't want to come
I've said all along that the focus on the numbers has been wrong - what matters is the process.
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
No, I'm not, because I agree with you. We DID fuck up the early stages with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, in the greater scheme of things - ie a huge war and millions misplaced - the whining about this modest blunder is overdone, and is just lefties having another tiresome pop at Boris and the Tories
Yes but you specifically didn't agree when I raised it here in the beginning.. It isn't modest, it is big and we are still doing it.
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
But yours shows something slightly different? What's the backstory to the image, may I ask?
It's a bit of graffiti I think from Ukraine that I saw a picture of on twitter. It's blue and yellow man with club (Ukraine) chasing fleeing, flailing red swastika man (Russia).
I thought it was quite cool for an avatar, but turned out I was a day or two behind Carlotta in adopting it so I've been meaning to replace it..
How about this one from Paris?
Cool. Thank you.
It's part of Putin's altered truth that he accuses Ukraine of Nazism.
Not, personally, sure applying the term or symbol back on Putin (however tempting) entirely works especially given the history of what happened in 1941.
But I write that with temerity lest that paragon of peace Marquee Mark seizes on it as a sign of pro-Putin sentiments. Sigh.
I quoted this yesterday. Aleksandr Dugin - Putin's closest confidant and author of his political theory - describes it as "fascist fascism"
I think they've earnt the swastika.
"Along with advocating the absorption of Eastern Europe and Central Asia into Russia, Dugin, in The Fourth Political Theory, promotes a political ideology that combines what he views as the best elements of Nazism, Communism, Ecologism (opposition to modernity), and Traditionalism, describing this ideology as a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary, and consistent fascist fascism.”" https://stanfordpolitics.org/2017/02/02/eurasianism-new-fascism/
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Yes, it's probably slightly more than that here (in Vietnam the Americans mainly operated out of bases on 'search and destroy' operations rather than take and hold vast areas of terrain) but I'd be surprised if combat troops make up more than half.
Not sure what you can do in a country the size of Ukraine with, effectively, less than 100k fighting men. Still less if you split them half-a-dozen ways.
Good morning, everyone. I am interested in the debate about taking in refugees. Yesterday I went to a Lent lunch where the guests were a Syrian refugee couple and the lady who sponsored them and provided them and their two sons with a local house. I learned that following David Cameron's much vaunted offer that the UK would take in 20,000 Syrian refugees, 847 have actually been resttled here. Plus, the lady who offered to sponsor and provide a home for a family waited two years before there was any significant action on her offer.
Some people have been driven so crazy by their hatred of all things "woke" that they have forgotten that Putin is literally famous for being the autocratic ruler of Russia.
It's a bit like if you said "Gaddafi was right about democracy" because you find an utterly banal and unoriginal quote in the Little Green Book about democracy that you agree with. People would rightly call you out.
It matters *who* is saying whatever meaningless platitude you find yourself agreeing with.
I am genuinely surprised that the bounce for the government, in response to the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wasn't larger. It doesn't seem to be any greater than what you would expect simply from the negative partygate stories about the government disappearing from the news.
I would guess that this means the British public as a whole do not feel viscerally threatened by war in Ukraine, which has implications for their willingness to make sacrifices to fund increased defence expenditure.
I may be missing some context not being there but I'm not sure who's supposed to be impressed by the British government's response. They had *one job* which was to apply sanctions to Russian assets in London and they seem to be totally failing? Then there's letting in refugees, which also simultaneously mean and incompetent. Most other western governments seem to be rising to the occasion, and the British aren't.
You can definitely get a rally-around-the-leader effect when there's a crisis but it does require at least a bare minimum of leadership.
Yep. And "oh god imagine if we had Corbyn" doesn't improve matters. The opposite really. He'd likely have done better on both those things.
If Britain has "failed to rise to the occasion" "unlike every other European country", as you two pitiful fucktards profess to believe, perhaps you could explain why, when Ukrainians - Ukrainians - are polled, Britain is the most favourably viewed foreign country and Boris Johnson is the most favourably viewed foreign leader?
"US pollster @cygnal has polled residents of Ukraine on their view of certain countries and leaders:"
"EU +42.2 Nato -16.8 UK +56 Biden +25.8 Johnson +49.6 Zelensky +79 Putin -86.7"
Was this a telephone poll, an internet poll or did they directly ask Ukrainian refugees as they fled the country?
First thing that struck me. Must have interesting sampling methods. Really though how do you sample this set. Seriously though it depends hugely on what Ukrainian hear. If our supply of weapons a thumbs up, if our visa application process thumbs down. I suspect they didn't poll a visa queue.
Hey Blanche, am really curious about your avatar. I was toying with the idea of using a swastika as mine but ever since the Nazis misappropriated it I decided it would be a hopeless lost cause. Which is pretty sad. Sigh.
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
But yours shows something slightly different? What's the backstory to the image, may I ask?
It's a bit of graffiti I think from Ukraine that I saw a picture of on twitter. It's blue and yellow man with club (Ukraine) chasing fleeing, flailing red swastika man (Russia).
I thought it was quite cool for an avatar, but turned out I was a day or two behind Carlotta in adopting it so I've been meaning to replace it..
How about this one from Paris?
Cool. Thank you.
It's part of Putin's altered truth that he accuses Ukraine of Nazism.
Not, personally, sure applying the term or symbol back on Putin (however tempting) entirely works especially given the history of what happened in 1941.
But I write that with temerity lest that paragon of peace Marquee Mark seizes on it as a sign of pro-Putin sentiments. Sigh.
I quoted this yesterday. Aleksandr Dugin - Putin's closest confidant and author of his political theory - describes it as "fascist fascism"
I think they've earnt the swastika.
"Along with advocating the absorption of Eastern Europe and Central Asia into Russia, Dugin, in The Fourth Political Theory, promotes a political ideology that combines what he views as the best elements of Nazism, Communism, Ecologism (opposition to modernity), and Traditionalism, describing this ideology as a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary, and consistent fascist fascism.”" https://stanfordpolitics.org/2017/02/02/eurasianism-new-fascism/
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
Has there been some very good news overnight or did you get your tenses wrong there?
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Well, maybe my family wasn’t typical but both of my great uncles did (as in, were tank commanders in tank battles). One of my grandfathers was not deemed fit for military service so stayed at home. Of my grandfather’s friends one was a naval officer mostly on Arctic convoys, one was a Marine on special ops, one was a paratrooper and one was an infantry sergeant. They all saw ‘real action.’
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
I am genuinely surprised that the bounce for the government, in response to the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wasn't larger. It doesn't seem to be any greater than what you would expect simply from the negative partygate stories about the government disappearing from the news.
I would guess that this means the British public as a whole do not feel viscerally threatened by war in Ukraine, which has implications for their willingness to make sacrifices to fund increased defence expenditure.
I may be missing some context not being there but I'm not sure who's supposed to be impressed by the British government's response. They had *one job* which was to apply sanctions to Russian assets in London and they seem to be totally failing? Then there's letting in refugees, which also simultaneously mean and incompetent. Most other western governments seem to be rising to the occasion, and the British aren't.
You can definitely get a rally-around-the-leader effect when there's a crisis but it does require at least a bare minimum of leadership.
Yep. And "oh god imagine if we had Corbyn" doesn't improve matters. The opposite really. He'd likely have done better on both those things.
If Britain has "failed to rise to the occasion" "unlike every other European country", as you two pitiful fucktards profess to believe, perhaps you could explain why, when Ukrainians - Ukrainians - are polled, Britain is the most favourably viewed foreign country and Boris Johnson is the most favourably viewed foreign leader?
"US pollster @cygnal has polled residents of Ukraine on their view of certain countries and leaders:"
"EU +42.2 Nato -16.8 UK +56 Biden +25.8 Johnson +49.6 Zelensky +79 Putin -86.7"
Was this a telephone poll, an internet poll or did they directly ask Ukrainian refugees as they fled the country?
First thing that struck me. Must have interesting sampling methods. Really though how do you sample this set. Seriously though it depends hugely on what Ukrainian hear. If our supply of weapons a thumbs up, if our visa application process thumbs down. I suspect they didn't poll a visa queue.
There are some dreadful tales about getting, or rather, not getting, visas. I realise that few Ukrainians will know who Priti Patel is, but I wonder what their option of her would be if they did! Although I gather that in one case, which affected a constituent, she's been helpful.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Two uncles did, my father didn't and nor did my father-in-law. All four served, although one uncle wasn't called up until 1943 (I think). Some cousins were involved, one certainly saw action (Dieppe, Walcheren)
Good morning, everyone. I am interested in the debate about taking in refugees. Yesterday I went to a Lent lunch where the guests were a Syrian refugee couple and the lady who sponsored them and provided them and their two sons with a local house. I learned that following David Cameron's much vaunted offer that the UK would take in 20,000 Syrian refugees, 847 have actually been resttled here. Plus, the lady who offered to sponsor and provide a home for a family waited two years before there was any significant action on her offer.
847. Not according to refugee action. It is nearer to 20,000
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
The Russian BTG formation of 10 tanks, 30 APC, artillery and support units as a self contained combined arms unit doesn't lend itself to redeployment of tanks and armoured forces to other units, it is meant to fight as one organisation. It seems clear too that their support troops are insufficient.
I think that they will take the Donbas and Azov Coast fairly soon though, even if stalled elsewhere. The countetattack seems to mean Odesa is safe for now though.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Well, maybe my family wasn’t typical but both of my great uncles did (as in, were tank commanders in tank battles). One of my grandfathers was not deemed fit for military service so stayed at home. Of my grandfather’s friends one was a naval officer mostly on Arctic convoys, one was a Marine on special ops, one was a paratrooper and one was an infantry sergeant. They all saw ‘real action.’
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
Of course, that may be completely atypical.
Quite a lot to be proud of there. Of my relatives (and there were a lot) only one was in the frontline. His tank was hit in the desert and suffered shell shock for the rest of his life as well as a serious leg injury. Grandparents were bombed in the blitz, but not frontline. A friend's father flew Typhoons in Asia and was badly affected by his experience. Crash landed twice. Took part in the Berlin airlift later.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Well, maybe my family wasn’t typical but both of my great uncles did (as in, were tank commanders in tank battles). One of my grandfathers was not deemed fit for military service so stayed at home. Of my grandfather’s friends one was a naval officer mostly on Arctic convoys, one was a Marine on special ops, one was a paratrooper and one was an infantry sergeant. They all saw ‘real action.’
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
Of course, that may be completely atypical.
My case is quite like yours. One grandfather and one great uncle in the navy, one in a reserved occupation (he was an engineer working on the problems of how to supply the d-day landings with oil), one great uncle in the RAF escorting the Arctic convoys. So three out of four in peril most of the time. There is also a survivor bias at play here - many of those in most peril died and therefore didn't have children. I read a stat recently that of those Russian males who graduated high school in 1941, only 3% were still alive in 1945. Treat with caution though because I now can't remember where!
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Well, maybe my family wasn’t typical but both of my great uncles did (as in, were tank commanders in tank battles). One of my grandfathers was not deemed fit for military service so stayed at home. Of my grandfather’s friends one was a naval officer mostly on Arctic convoys, one was a Marine on special ops, one was a paratrooper and one was an infantry sergeant. They all saw ‘real action.’
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
Of course, that may be completely atypical.
Quite a lot to be proud of there. Of my relatives (and there were a lot) only one was in the frontline. His tank was hit in the desert and suffered shell shock for the rest of his life as well as a serious leg injury. Grandparents were bombed in the blitz, but not frontline. A friend's father flew Typhoons in Asia and was badly affected by his experience. Crash landed twice. Took part in the Berlin airlift later.
Another friends father had a very lucky war. They seemed to move him out of places before the Germans arrived or moved him in after they had left. They taught him to ski for alpine warfare, but never used him. He seems to have been prepared for frontline service but never used. Very lucky.
Good article, even if poking fun at the absurdities of the extreme left (or right for that matter) feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
And why are the left so obsessed with American "imperialism", when, with a couple of exceptions (the Phillippines) it was the first non-imperial great power in history, at any rate once it had dispossessed its own natives, and in fact hugely undermined the European colonial empires?
I think this is a remarkably naive view of the scope, range, and pervasiveness of American power in the world today. It's not just the military bases that exist in over a hundred countries but also the economic power that America holds over much of the world. States have to account for American foreign policy in the pursuit of their own domestic policy, and states that have displeased America regimes have had a range of responses from Washington including threats, assassinations, sanctions, terror attacks, invasion and outright overthrow. Territories directly administered by Washington tend to be relatively small but they do exist, which is why traditional conceptions of imperial modes tends to be disapplied, but the concept of empire as historically been fluid anyway. An example is that the late Roman republic was very clearly imperial prior to the time that we tend to talk of the fall of the republic midway through Augustus's reign. What's in a name? Did it really matter that much to the people of Gaul that the system of foreign rule changed from republic to cryptomonarchy?
The people of Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Japan, Haiti and many more know that American influence extends as far as the constraint of sovereign choices.
So a sensible conversation about the nature of imperialism is probably overdue. It's true that some on the left reflexively reject American power and that is a shame. But it's no worse than the unthinking welcoming of America's influence as benign and positive for the subjects of its hard and soft power. It is by no means foolish to think of America as an empire, if one only qualifies that with a level-headed description of what imperialism looks like these days.
The left critique of American foreign policy is considerably better grounded than Fishing wants to portray and has a wealth of factual content that ought to make anybody think twice about what limits it places on us. If a competent Trumpist leader took control of the USA, it might be a bit of a shock to the soft-conservative-liberal parts of this country for whom American sits firmly in a blind spot.
There’s something in that, true.
But consider the two current true world powers - China and the US. We have a direct comparison of the two which has run for seven decades on the Korean peninsula, since the Korean War. The US client state which emerged from that has gone from dictatorship to democracy, and is a wholly developed nation. China’s client state remains a dynastic absolute dictatorship, and despite having far greater natural resources than its southern neighbour, remains of the poorest countries in the world.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
I wonder if Putin thought it would all be a bit “France in WW2”.
He rolls in quickly, overwhelms them and then lets the east be run under a form of Vichy govt whilst leaving 100,000 troops stationed in the west (northern France) to face the “enemy” under a more directly controlled administration.
Similar size and populations between France and Ukraine then and now.
So ultimately comes down to him not realising that the Ukrainians in the East especially were not going to welcome Russia in with open arms and backs up the idea that his inner circle were lying to him and didn’t want to tell him hard truths and the foreign intelligence was corrupt and the funds they were given weren’t used for what they were supposed to be used for.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
I remember reading when we were embroiled in Helmand there were something like 10,000 British troops in total in the country. Of which about 700 were frontline combat troops. Trying to control a huge area - like Wales or something - of impassable terrain full of hostile locals. Bonkers really.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
I remember reading when we were embroiled in Helmand there were something like 10,000 British troops in total in the country. Of which about 700 were frontline combat troops. Trying to control a huge area - like Wales or something - of impassable terrain full of hostile locals. Bonkers really.
Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we (both military and our politicians) hugely over-estimated our ability to win 'hearts and minds', reaching a peak of hubris when the British took over from the Americans in Basra, the latter having failed to achieve anything, when the press was full of stories and opinion pieces explaining why, after our long experience of colonial deployments, our supposedly more culturally sensitive approach would do so much better.....
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
The Kremlin has so far failed to achieve its original objectives. It has been surprised by the scale and ferocity of Ukrainian Resistance.
Russia has been forced to change its operational approach and is now pursuing a strategy of attrition.
This is likely to involve the indiscriminate use of firepower resulting in increased civilian casualties, destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure, and intensify the humanitarian crisis.
Putin has reinforced his control over Russian domestic media. The Kremlin is attempting to control the narrative, detract from operational problems and obscure high Russian casualty numbers from the Russian people.
Prepare for a general election next year, No 10 staff told as inflation bites
Rishi Sunak’s spring statement next week will highlight fault lines within a government already grappling with an energy crisis, the lockdown party scandal and Brexit
When David Canzini, the prime minister’s new deputy chief of staff, addressed advisers on Friday last week he had some surprising news. The Australian strategist, an ally of Sir Lynton Crosby, told those present that they had to begin preparing for the possibility of a general election in the autumn of next year.
While May 2024 remains the most likely date, Canzini said that the “clock is ticking”. The prime minister, he said, was “not out of the woods yet” over the No 10 lockdown parties scandal and Conservative MPs needed to be wooed, especially those who have openly plotted against the prime minister. “They are all God’s children,” he said.
He presented staff with a slide showing the government’s five priorities.
Delivering on the promises of Brexit was at the top of the list. “If you don’t think that’s a priority you shouldn’t be here,” Canzini said. The cost-of-living crisis was second, and the NHS, crime and migrant boats were the others.
“It was a strange list of priorities,” one government aide said. “We’re on the brink of a generational cost-of-living crisis and yet Brexit was top of the list.”
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
Reminds me to change profile picture…..
Why? Do you think it's pejorative to imply somebody is gay?
The Ukrainian Military has officially claimed that the commander of the Russian Southern Military District's 8th Combined Arms Army Lieutenant General Andrey Mordvichev was killed, reportedly at the airfield in Kherson. facebook.com/GeneralStaff.u… theins.ru/news/249409
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
Reminds me to change profile picture…..
Why? Do you think it's pejorative to imply somebody is gay?
No - why would you leap to that conclusion?
I suspect Putin might not regard it as a compliment, given his repression of gay rights.
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
Good point. I'm no expert but isn't this the norm for most wars. Of all the people I know/knew who were in WW2 which is my parents generation, so a lot. I am only aware of 2 that actually saw real action.
Well, maybe my family wasn’t typical but both of my great uncles did (as in, were tank commanders in tank battles). One of my grandfathers was not deemed fit for military service so stayed at home. Of my grandfather’s friends one was a naval officer mostly on Arctic convoys, one was a Marine on special ops, one was a paratrooper and one was an infantry sergeant. They all saw ‘real action.’
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
Of course, that may be completely atypical.
My case is quite like yours. One grandfather and one great uncle in the navy, one in a reserved occupation (he was an engineer working on the problems of how to supply the d-day landings with oil), one great uncle in the RAF escorting the Arctic convoys. So three out of four in peril most of the time. There is also a survivor bias at play here - many of those in most peril died and therefore didn't have children. I read a stat recently that of those Russian males who graduated high school in 1941, only 3% were still alive in 1945. Treat with caution though because I now can't remember where!
I had one great uncle in the merchant navy on Arctic convoys (this always sounded least good). Grandfather was in the RAF in North Africa, Sicily, Italy (ground crew not aircrew) whose main "dangerous occupation" seemed to be that they used to send several of them up with LRDG guides to sit in trucks in wadis near enemy airfields and be ready to do something or other prior to a major operation. I often wonder if there was something that required technical input on their recce missions?
p.s. And before anyone says, 'yes but you said Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to invade', remember I predicated that on the knowledge that 200,000 troops was insufficient to guarantee outright victory and that the might of Russian military capability was exaggerated. Correct reasons. Just overlooked the rather important fact that we were dealing with a lunatic.
Did you actually state those reasons on here? Because I cannot remember you saying that beforehand.
.
I did indeed. For some reason I can't get back quotes to paste as quotes but if you look back here are a couple, verbatim. I made the point regularly that I didn't think there were sufficient Russian forces in place to be sure of victory, especially on multiple fronts and that Russian military might has been overplayed. Couple of examples:
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
Russia had 190k troops to start with. Let's be generous and say they also had (or now have) 60k auxiliaries, be they Belarusian, Chechen, Syrian or "other".
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
There was an assessment yesterday from some military bod, suggesting that Russia may have lost half of its frontline spearhead troops.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
I remember reading when we were embroiled in Helmand there were something like 10,000 British troops in total in the country. Of which about 700 were frontline combat troops. Trying to control a huge area - like Wales or something - of impassable terrain full of hostile locals. Bonkers really.
I think that’s a bit low, but these things do mount up. You have to secure your bases. You have to deliver your logistics, and secure those movements. You have to be able to repair your vehicles. You have intelligence teams, and planning teams, and medical teams. War is not an easy thing to do.
You’re doing well if your tooth/tail ratio is 1/3.
Given his obsession with being photographed half-naked in a variety of posed pictures, sometimes near other men, and his absolute obsession with the subject it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vladimir Putin was a repressed homosexual.
Reminds me to change profile picture…..
Why? Do you think it's pejorative to imply somebody is gay?
No - why would you leap to that conclusion?
I suspect Putin might not regard it as a compliment, given his repression of gay rights.
Well, he's never going to see it so who's your audience?
Either way the implication that somebody's sexuality is worthy of mockery or criticism is unpleasant.
Prepare for a general election next year, No 10 staff told as inflation bites
Rishi Sunak’s spring statement next week will highlight fault lines within a government already grappling with an energy crisis, the lockdown party scandal and Brexit
When David Canzini, the prime minister’s new deputy chief of staff, addressed advisers on Friday last week he had some surprising news. The Australian strategist, an ally of Sir Lynton Crosby, told those present that they had to begin preparing for the possibility of a general election in the autumn of next year.
While May 2024 remains the most likely date, Canzini said that the “clock is ticking”. The prime minister, he said, was “not out of the woods yet” over the No 10 lockdown parties scandal and Conservative MPs needed to be wooed, especially those who have openly plotted against the prime minister. “They are all God’s children,” he said.
He presented staff with a slide showing the government’s five priorities.
Delivering on the promises of Brexit was at the top of the list. “If you don’t think that’s a priority you shouldn’t be here,” Canzini said. The cost-of-living crisis was second, and the NHS, crime and migrant boats were the others.
“It was a strange list of priorities,” one government aide said. “We’re on the brink of a generational cost-of-living crisis and yet Brexit was top of the list.”
Why would anyone think that strange given the stupidity of the people writing it? This is a government who thought the first major pandemic in a hundred years was the right moment to have lots of boozy parties.
Good article, even if poking fun at the absurdities of the extreme left (or right for that matter) feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
And why are the left so obsessed with American "imperialism", when, with a couple of exceptions (the Phillippines) it was the first non-imperial great power in history, at any rate once it had dispossessed its own natives, and in fact hugely undermined the European colonial empires?
I think this is a remarkably naive view of the scope, range, and pervasiveness of American power in the world today. It's not just the military bases that exist in over a hundred countries but also the economic power that America holds over much of the world. States have to account for American foreign policy in the pursuit of their own domestic policy, and states that have displeased America regimes have had a range of responses from Washington including threats, assassinations, sanctions, terror attacks, invasion and outright overthrow. Territories directly administered by Washington tend to be relatively small but they do exist, which is why traditional conceptions of imperial modes tends to be disapplied, but the concept of empire as historically been fluid anyway. An example is that the late Roman republic was very clearly imperial prior to the time that we tend to talk of the fall of the republic midway through Augustus's reign. What's in a name? Did it really matter that much to the people of Gaul that the system of foreign rule changed from republic to cryptomonarchy?
The people of Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Japan, Haiti and many more know that American influence extends as far as the constraint of sovereign choices.
So a sensible conversation about the nature of imperialism is probably overdue. It's true that some on the left reflexively reject American power and that is a shame. But it's no worse than the unthinking welcoming of America's influence as benign and positive for the subjects of its hard and soft power. It is by no means foolish to think of America as an empire, if one only qualifies that with a level-headed description of what imperialism looks like these days.
The left critique of American foreign policy is considerably better grounded than Fishing wants to portray and has a wealth of factual content that ought to make anybody think twice about what limits it places on us. If a competent Trumpist leader took control of the USA, it might be a bit of a shock to the soft-conservative-liberal parts of this country for whom American sits firmly in a blind spot.
Imperialism means including a country in your empire (the clue is in the name) - taking direct political control of it and maintaing that control. America has not done so (except very occasionally and temporarily, such as Germany and Japan after WW2 or Iraq) to any significant extent since it left the Phillippines in 1946.
Of course America has an active and often dirty foreign policy, but that is simply not imperialism. And of course America has bases overseas - usually at the request of the countries themselves. We and the West Germans hosted dozens of bases during the Cold War. Were we in an American "empire"? Clearly not. We had our own governments and they had control over their policy. We sometimes refused American requests, for example to send troops to Vietnam, or over Suez.
We were close allies to America, and, pushing it somewhat, satellites, but we were never in their empire.
Prepare for a general election next year, No 10 staff told as inflation bites
Rishi Sunak’s spring statement next week will highlight fault lines within a government already grappling with an energy crisis, the lockdown party scandal and Brexit
When David Canzini, the prime minister’s new deputy chief of staff, addressed advisers on Friday last week he had some surprising news. The Australian strategist, an ally of Sir Lynton Crosby, told those present that they had to begin preparing for the possibility of a general election in the autumn of next year.
While May 2024 remains the most likely date, Canzini said that the “clock is ticking”. The prime minister, he said, was “not out of the woods yet” over the No 10 lockdown parties scandal and Conservative MPs needed to be wooed, especially those who have openly plotted against the prime minister. “They are all God’s children,” he said.
He presented staff with a slide showing the government’s five priorities.
Delivering on the promises of Brexit was at the top of the list. “If you don’t think that’s a priority you shouldn’t be here,” Canzini said. The cost-of-living crisis was second, and the NHS, crime and migrant boats were the others.
“It was a strange list of priorities,” one government aide said. “We’re on the brink of a generational cost-of-living crisis and yet Brexit was top of the list.”
Delivering on the Brexit promises they made absolutely needs to be a priority. Aligned as it is to reducing inequality among the regions and levelling up.
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.
Comments
Honestly. What is this constant need to do Britain down, even when the evidence is directly contrary? It is pathological. We have our faults and flaws, we also have our virtues and victories. Enough of the masochism. It's boring
This is not going to be true of that many Ukrainian refugees, tho we should obviously make any that do want to come as welcome as possible
And on that ecumenical note, goodnight
There are some who want to come to the UK and we should make it as easy for those as possible. That means waiving the requirement for a visa as all the other countries in Europe have done. If, in the end, only 15,000 Ukrainians seek refuge here then, so what? At least we will have made it easier for those 15,000 to reach that refuge. Instead they're having to mess around making applications and waiting for decisions and sorting out accommodation for an unknown period in the interim, and then having to sort out travel - it's all unnecessarily difficult.
Someone earlier was arguing that we had to make it difficult, because otherwise as the largest English-speaking economy we would be overwhelmed. Now you're arguing it doesn't matter what we do because none of them want to come here anyway. It's all just bollocks excuses for an inhumane policy that adds a bureaucratic nightmare onto the suffering of everything else they are going through.
And some details of the process are ridiculous. There was one example on the radio, where a family had been visiting their daughter in the UK before the war, but they can't apply for the family visa because you can only apply for that visa from outside the UK. What are they supposed to do? At some point their tourist visa will expire and they'll be here illegally.
It's really very simple. We should have done what every other European country did - drop the requirement for a visa, and give some time for the refugees to formalise their presence after they'd arrived. Numbers are just a distraction. You're just using them as an angle to have another tiresome pop at the Left.
It's not just the military bases that exist in over a hundred countries but also the economic power that America holds over much of the world. States have to account for American foreign policy in the pursuit of their own domestic policy, and states that have displeased America regimes have had a range of responses from Washington including threats, assassinations, sanctions, terror attacks, invasion and outright overthrow.
Territories directly administered by Washington tend to be relatively small but they do exist, which is why traditional conceptions of imperial modes tends to be disapplied, but the concept of empire as historically been fluid anyway. An example is that the late Roman republic was very clearly imperial prior to the time that we tend to talk of the fall of the republic midway through Augustus's reign. What's in a name? Did it really matter that much to the people of Gaul that the system of foreign rule changed from republic to cryptomonarchy?
The people of Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Japan, Haiti and many more know that American influence extends as far as the constraint of sovereign choices.
So a sensible conversation about the nature of imperialism is probably overdue. It's true that some on the left reflexively reject American power and that is a shame. But it's no worse than the unthinking welcoming of America's influence as benign and positive for the subjects of its hard and soft power. It is by no means foolish to think of America as an empire, if one only qualifies that with a level-headed description of what imperialism looks like these days.
The left critique of American foreign policy is considerably better grounded than Fishing wants to portray and has a wealth of factual content that ought to make anybody think twice about what limits it places on us. If a competent Trumpist leader took control of the USA, it might be a bit of a shock to the soft-conservative-liberal parts of this country for whom American sits firmly in a blind spot.
Would you want America to have the power it does if its regime were radically and malignly different?
My answer is no, definitely not.
I do wonder if we will fill our 150,000 rooms. Of course if the war drags on for years/gets even worse, anything could happen
Your lack of proportion has disoriented you beyond all sense. You're actually insane.
https://youtu.be/fWClXZd9c78
Powerful stuff.
By the way I liked your ‘wordy’ critique of America, and I agree with much of it. Many countries around the world can see the hypocrisy of the USA complaining about other nations using bombs and bullets, when the USA itself is so often violently belligerent. And I’ve said on here many times that, one day, America’s extremely questionable use of drones for extra-judicial executions would come back to haunt it, when other countries felt strong enough to do the same. See Salisbury
Trouble is the Stop the War left take it all too far, and America becomes ENTIRELY evil, which is nonsense. And then you end up with the bizarre spectacle of lefties excusing Russia just because it’s not America or is anti-America
It’s not entirely in Ukraine’s, though.
A World Food Programme (WFP) official said on Friday that food supply chains in Ukraine were collapsing, with a portion of infrastructure destroyed and many grocery stores and warehouses now empty. Jakob Kern, WFP emergency coordinator for the Ukraine crisis, also expressed concern about the situation in “encircled cities” such as Mariupol.…
(Guardian)
It’s generally self-limiting. If you regularly go over the top, the impact diminishes. Who really minds a @malcolmg turnip rant?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-60800581
Only about a tenth of the population I think have been able to escape. The rest are trapped without power and water or food supplies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10628679/Russia-born-activist-REFUSES-eight-times-condemn-Putins-war-Ukraine.html
Two years is an awfully long time in politics and Ukraine probably won't feature highly in the GE campaigns but the stench of corrupt Russian money is part of the bigger picture of a party which is corrupt and rotten to its core.
Labour will win.
When you immerse yourself in other cultures, as opposed to living as an expat, you quickly discover that Britain isn't particularly great. In fact it's rubbish at many things,
Besides, I saw the number of troops as essentially irrelevant, for a few reasons:
*) He did not use too many troops on his previous adventures, and he won them.
*) He expected Ukraine not to fight too hard.
*) He has given the order. He expects the men he's sent to do their jobs. His will is law.
Unfortunately, he has found his 'will' has met up with a stronger one: that of the Ukrainian people, and of the world as a whole. Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind.
Yes, the current government is providing anti-tank weapons, but so are others, and some in larger quantities. Other than that, Edmund is right that the current government’s response has been underwhelming, since publicity and lots of Instagram pics don’t count as achievements.
Anyhow, avoid St Ann(e) St.
But Leon is conflating criticism of the government and its policies with doing down the country, which irks me more.
The left and right extremes meet in the middle.
Besides, I can image that it's quite hard for a Russian to accept the evil that is being done in the name of their country. It takes a lot of effort for many people to shift from 'we are the good guys' to 'we are the bad guys'.
And no need for the supercilious 'when you immerse yourself in other cultures' thing.
I loathe Vladimir Putin. I'm the only person on here who thinks we should back Zelensky and install a No Fly Zone and stand up to Putin.
Putin, on the other hand…
Feb 9th
"The Russian military might has been exaggerated ever since 1945. In fact it became something of a running joke when I had an involvement in this subject. That's not to downplay, but as you say to invade Ukraine properly would take a really serious concentration and I don't believe that Putin's deployment (of 200,000) was on that kind of magnitude."
Feb 7th
"As I have stated on here [...[ they don't have anything like sufficient forces in place."
AS74🇱🇹🇺🇦
@AS7404542949
«Россия может начать открытую массовую мобилизацию из-за потерь в Украине и ввести на территории РФ военное положение, предварительно проведя провокацию с гибелью мирного населения РФ», — Генштаб в утренней сводке
Translated
“Russia can start an open mass mobilization due to losses in Ukraine and introduce martial law on the territory of the Russian Federation, having previously carried out a provocation with the death of the civilian population of the Russian Federation,” the General Staff in the morning summary
https://twitter.com/AS7404542949/status/1505056733240168451
I've lived off grid, as we would now term it, and eaten entirely local non-western food for years at a time, fluent in other languages, wearing local clothes etc. etc.. Gone native: which is a fairly perilous term but you get the gist.
I love other countries and cultures and realise that there is good and bad in all peoples and places. The UK has its good points and its bad points. Misplaced arrogance is possibly its most bemusing failure but there are plenty of others.
F1: currently looking like Verstappen-Leclerc for pole. But still third practice to go.
Leclerc's race win odds have plunged to 3.25.
Victor Kovalenko
@MrKovalenko
The #Ukraine Army claims that they eliminated the fifth in a row Russian General - a commander of the 8th Rus. Army of the South region Lt. Gen. Andrey Mordvichev. He was eliminated in #Chornobaivka township near #Kherson city airport.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1504945518115532806
As you will know, it has a history in eastern traditions dating back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years:
https://reclaimingzen.com/the-buddhist-swastika/
But yours shows something slightly different? What's the backstory to the image, may I ask?
"In the vanguard of Ukraine's astonishingly effective military effort against Vladimir Putin's forces is a unit called Aerorozvidka (Aerial Reconnaissance) which is using surveillance and attack drones to target Russian tanks and positions.
Amid internet and power outages, which are expected to get worse, Ukraine is turning to the newly available Starlink system for some of its communications."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/18/elon-musks-starlink-helping-ukraine-win-drone-war/
(Paywall sadly)
The Russian war effort will be reduced to sending pencil notes....
I guess I get a bit fed up when people think Britain is great when I see greatness in other places. And I have an antipathy to our colonial past and the way it is, and more importantly isn't, taught in schools.
There's still lots that's lovely about Britain. I guess. The Western Highlands is ("are"?) one of my favourite places on earth. Though maybe not at the fag end of November.
I thought it was quite cool for an avatar, but turned out I was a day or two behind Carlotta in adopting it so I've been meaning to replace it..
How about this one from Paris?
Following on from the 'greatness in other places' thought above. I've visited most parts of Britain (except NW Scotland) and travelled a bit (except S America) and most places have their positives, and very often strong ones.
That's 250k.
What are they all doing?
Well, look at this map. They are split across six main thrusts: Kyiv from the north, Kyiv from the east, north from Mykolaiv (ultimately this one wants to hook round to Odessa), a pincer movement on Mariupol from both the Melitopol area and Donetsk region, and one on Kharkiv. I suppose you could add a couple more mini-ones donkeying around trying to expand into Ukraine from the breakaway regions in the far-east of the country:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg
They are also tying up troops and artillery investing other cities like Chernihiv, Konotop, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mariupol and Mykolaiv. Their tanks and armoured vehicles will mainly be in the mobile 'thrusts'.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if even if their tanks and armoured forces constitute half their army they are split at least six ways, so probably have no more than 15,000-25,000 men in each one, perhaps slightly stronger in the Kyiv wing, and they will have had to detach 1/4 of those to protect their supply lines. And even if you assumed *all* the rest are combat troops, which they won't be, that leaves barely 20,000 a piece to invest 6 x different major Ukrainian cities. Cities where they have mobilised almost all the adult male population, with probably equal numbers of Ukrainian regulars to the Russians and vast numbers of militia on top.
Now, we know they've suffered casualties - even they admit that - and let's say that's about 10%, so about 25k men killed, injured, wounded, captured or "missing", and that these will be concentrated in the front-line infantry and tank forces. So they will be even weaker here where city fighting normally requires overwhelming superiority.
So, rather than asking "why have they stalled" we should be asking "we wouldn't they stall?"
As I said yesterday, Putin is attacking like he has over a million men, and he doesn't.
Instead, he's convinced himself he's like Stalin and capable of conquest of the whole centre and east of the country. Thus, he's fallen victim to hubris.
It's part of Putin's altered truth that he accuses Ukraine of Nazism.
Not, personally, sure applying the term or symbol back on Putin (however tempting) entirely works especially given the history of what happened in 1941.
But I write that with temerity lest that paragon of peace Marquee Mark seizes on it as a sign of pro-Putin sentiments. Sigh.
Great post
I much prefer ... actually I'm not going to say in case it becomes the next motoring swarm.
That does highlight one of my biggest bugbears with Britain. It's a very small place for the population and although it is still possible to get off the beaten track, it's getting harder and harder.
Putin's troops, I gather to their surprise, are finding that the local population, no matter what their first language, are bitterly opposed to them.
Reports overnight of several more Russian columns destroyed won't have helped.
I remember reading that in the Vietnam War, as few as 15% of the US troops sent over there were the grunts in contact with the enemy.
based on this RFEL retweet below.
It will be a VERY grim thread laying a marker against future events.😖😖😖 https://twitter.com/bruceogi1/status/1504951922104672256
I think they've earnt the swastika.
"Along with advocating the absorption of Eastern Europe and Central Asia into Russia, Dugin, in The Fourth Political Theory, promotes a political ideology that combines what he views as the best elements of Nazism, Communism, Ecologism (opposition to modernity), and Traditionalism, describing this ideology as a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary, and consistent fascist fascism.”"
https://stanfordpolitics.org/2017/02/02/eurasianism-new-fascism/
Not sure what you can do in a country the size of Ukraine with, effectively, less than 100k fighting men. Still less if you split them half-a-dozen ways.
It's a bit like if you said "Gaddafi was right about democracy" because you find an utterly banal and unoriginal quote in the Little Green Book about democracy that you agree with. People would rightly call you out.
It matters *who* is saying whatever meaningless platitude you find yourself agreeing with.
As for my grandfather himself, it depends on what you mean by ‘real action.’ He was the quartermaster so he was with the supply convoys. However the Luftwaffe paid him fairly frequent visits.
Of course, that may be completely atypical.
Although I gather that in one case, which affected a constituent, she's been helpful.
https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
I think that they will take the Donbas and Azov Coast fairly soon though, even if stalled elsewhere. The countetattack seems to mean Odesa is safe for now though.
There is also a survivor bias at play here - many of those in most peril died and therefore didn't have children.
I read a stat recently that of those Russian males who graduated high school in 1941, only 3% were still alive in 1945. Treat with caution though because I now can't remember where!
But consider the two current true world powers - China and the US. We have a direct comparison of the two which has run for seven decades on the Korean peninsula, since the Korean War.
The US client state which emerged from that has gone from dictatorship to democracy, and is a wholly developed nation.
China’s client state remains a dynastic absolute dictatorship, and despite having far greater natural resources than its southern neighbour, remains of the poorest countries in the world.
Must read piece from Allan Little.
The alleged leaker from the FSB has posted a new piece that I'll link to in a bit.
He rolls in quickly, overwhelms them and then lets the east be run under a form of Vichy govt whilst leaving 100,000 troops stationed in the west (northern France) to face the “enemy” under a more directly controlled administration.
Similar size and populations between France and Ukraine then and now.
So ultimately comes down to him not realising that the Ukrainians in the East especially were not going to welcome Russia in with open arms and backs up the idea that his inner circle were lying to him and didn’t want to tell him hard truths and the foreign intelligence was corrupt and the funds they were given weren’t used for what they were supposed to be used for.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/19/after-the-victory-ruined-city-of-okhtyrka-clings-to-hope-of-brighter-future
The Kremlin has so far failed to achieve its original objectives. It has been surprised by the scale and ferocity of Ukrainian Resistance.
Russia has been forced to change its operational approach and is now pursuing a strategy of attrition.
This is likely to involve the indiscriminate use of firepower resulting in increased civilian casualties, destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure, and intensify the humanitarian crisis.
Putin has reinforced his control over Russian domestic media. The Kremlin is attempting to control the narrative, detract from operational problems and obscure high Russian casualty numbers from the Russian people.
https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1505064029232025600?s=21
Prepare for a general election next year, No 10 staff told as inflation bites
Rishi Sunak’s spring statement next week will highlight fault lines within a government already grappling with an energy crisis, the lockdown party scandal and Brexit
When David Canzini, the prime minister’s new deputy chief of staff, addressed advisers on Friday last week he had some surprising news. The Australian strategist, an ally of Sir Lynton Crosby, told those present that they had to begin preparing for the possibility of a general election in the autumn of next year.
While May 2024 remains the most likely date, Canzini said that the “clock is ticking”. The prime minister, he said, was “not out of the woods yet” over the No 10 lockdown parties scandal and Conservative MPs needed to be wooed, especially those who have openly plotted against the prime minister. “They are all God’s children,” he said.
He presented staff with a slide showing the government’s five priorities.
Delivering on the promises of Brexit was at the top of the list. “If you don’t think that’s a priority you shouldn’t be here,” Canzini said. The cost-of-living crisis was second, and the NHS, crime and migrant boats were the others.
“It was a strange list of priorities,” one government aide said. “We’re on the brink of a generational cost-of-living crisis and yet Brexit was top of the list.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prepare-general-election-inflation-uk-ukraine-boris-johnson-fr8dgcwlw
facebook.com/GeneralStaff.u…
theins.ru/news/249409
https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1505094666684882944?s=21
I suspect Putin might not regard it as a compliment, given his repression of gay rights.
You’re doing well if your tooth/tail ratio is 1/3.
Either way the implication that somebody's sexuality is worthy of mockery or criticism is unpleasant.
Of course America has an active and often dirty foreign policy, but that is simply not imperialism. And of course America has bases overseas - usually at the request of the countries themselves. We and the West Germans hosted dozens of bases during the Cold War. Were we in an American "empire"? Clearly not. We had our own governments and they had control over their policy. We sometimes refused American requests, for example to send troops to Vietnam, or over Suez.
We were close allies to America, and, pushing it somewhat, satellites, but we were never in their empire.
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.