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.
They've already decided not to by binning HS2E and Northern Powerhouse rail.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
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.
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.
They've already decided not to by binning HS2E and Northern Powerhouse rail.
A smart opposition would be throwing that back at them at every opportunity in the campaign. Especially in the red wall.
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.
Delivering on the promises of Brexit is so important, they put Rees-Mogg in charge of it.
It is. And the poor sods in the logistics dpt who sorted them out and aren’t off planet for six months too. The head of the Russian space agency seems like quite the Putin fan so you’d have to guess there’ll be a witch hunt.
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.
What exactly are this confederacy of dunces going to do to achieve that? Assuming it's possible in the first place (which it probably isn't) and they're not running out of money (which they are).
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.
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.
What exactly are this confederacy of dunces going to do to achieve that? Assuming it's possible in the first place (which it probably isn't) and they're not running out of money (which they are).
One way that would help considerably is if they all resigned. Alas that is not likely.
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.
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 think the 3% figure cam from Kamilkazani's twitter yesterday
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.
Unfortunately there is not a hope of that happening with this lot of crooks.
Just heard a clip on Radio 4 of Obama mocking Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat “the 1980s and 1990’s called and they want their foreign policies back”….. aged well.
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.
The Dick Emery school of political satire has its place. In 1973.
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.
Yep. I've seen some react against the horseshoe theory, usually with desperate reference to purported ideology and motivations of the extremists (eg left and right totalitarian regimes have supposedly different goals ergo are meaningfully different), but it's never been very persuasive for me.
If both act similarly I really dont think it makes a difference if one has more openly distasteful motivations than the other. If anything it just means one is more honest with itself than the other. Bleat about peace while giving succour to war mongers and you're just a self satisfied hypocrite.
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.
What exactly are this confederacy of dunces going to do to achieve that? Assuming it's possible in the first place (which it probably isn't) and they're not running out of money (which they are).
Fuck knows, as @ydoethur says they’ve already canned HS2E and northern powerhouse rail. Deeds rather than words. Whether or not it’s possible it is far less possible without good transport infrastructure.
I suspect they’ve realised they have made a lot of promises that they have not delivered on and are not likely to deliver on and I would expect a slew of Gordon brown style announcements which merely just reannounce stuff already promised to look like they are doing something.
It is. And the poor sods in the logistics dpt who sorted them out and aren’t off planet for six months too. The head of the Russian space agency seems like quite the Putin fan so you’d have to guess there’ll be a witch hunt.
One of the strangest things about the Trump administration was that he chose a rather sensible NASA administrator - Jim Bridenstine. Maybe Trump had an off day?
Dmitry Rogozin is the administrator that Trump would have chosen, normally.
The Brexit campaign made many promises to the regions that leaving the EU would enable these regions to prosper. They need to deliver that.
What exactly are this confederacy of dunces going to do to achieve that? Assuming it's possible in the first place (which it probably isn't) and they're not running out of money (which they are).
The country may be running out of money , they are far from it , many pockets have been well lined by the pandemic.
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
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.
I'm amazed this is where you draw the line on acceptable comments.
It is. And the poor sods in the logistics dpt who sorted them out and aren’t off planet for six months too. The head of the Russian space agency seems like quite the Putin fan so you’d have to guess there’ll be a witch hunt.
One of the strangest things about the Trump administration was that he chose a rather sensible NASA administrator - Jim Bridenstine. Maybe Trump had an off day?
Dmitry Rogozin is the administrator that Trump would have chosen, normally.
Rogozin is an absolute tool. A little man put into big position, who has consistently made that position smaller.
I have utter contempt for him. He is a little encapsulation of all that is wrong with Russia. Its fall personified.
Edit: Bridenstine was great. Shortly after the pandemic started, he appeared on a space podcast where he went at length into how NASA had coped with the pandemic. Then, when the conversation changed to technical topics, he talked about them as well. He was admirably on top of the NASA brief. IMO NASA misses him.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and he became an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
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.
Unfortunately there is not a hope of that happening with this lot of crooks.
Yup, you’re absolutely right. Not a hope in hell. I expect just a few reannouncements of stuff already announced to look like they are doing something. But people are not stupid. Brexit was supposed to improve their lives and if it hasn’t the Tories must pay an electoral price.
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.
Informal empire or hegemony is still a recognised thing. America exercises a level of power which is Imperial in nature. Loons take it way too far but whatever we call their brand of dominance it has been there
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
It is. And the poor sods in the logistics dpt who sorted them out and aren’t off planet for six months too. The head of the Russian space agency seems like quite the Putin fan so you’d have to guess there’ll be a witch hunt.
One of the strangest things about the Trump administration was that he chose a rather sensible NASA administrator - Jim Bridenstine. Maybe Trump had an off day?
Dmitry Rogozin is the administrator that Trump would have chosen, normally.
Rogozin is an absolute tool. A little man put into big position, who has consistently made that position smaller.
I have utter contempt for him. He is a little encapsulation of all that is wrong with Russia. Its fall personified.
As I said, the perfect pick for Trump.
A lot of people expected Bridenstine to be like that, since he was picked by Trump. Instead he did things like getting the NASA science money for earth observation increased. And told Boeing to fuck off when they tried to get Commercial Crew changed to just them (Boeing). Which would have created an interesting situation at the moment....
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.
It's a very strange comment. Has he never seen someone speculate that anti gay preachers are secretly gay? They may be struggling with their own repressed desires and deserving of a degree of sympathy that they are so internally torn , or they might just be dicks, but I think virtually anyone else would be better off trying morally police offensive comments.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
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!
Excellent point re survivoir bias. For me one granddad in the police in WW2, (so reserved occupation, but too old anyway, had served in France 1915-18, making your point). one predeceased, one father training at Torpoint during the war, no doubt about to head off to the British Pacific Fleet when the war ended in 1945.
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.
Talking up a great game on accepting refugees while doing as little as possible to take them in seems a long standing factor in British politics. I’ve no doubt if Labour were in power that they would also be tiptoeing gingerly rounded the subject. Given the outpouring of sympathy from the UK public towards Ukrainian refugees (for ‘reasons’) it seems odd that populist BJ and his motley crew haven’t gone for an easy win, but after seeing the ghastly Braverman on QT the other night I conclude that these people are intrinsically anti immigration whatever the context. BJ is after all the historian (lol!) who said the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by uncontrolled immigration.
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.
Unfortunately there is not a hope of that happening with this lot of crooks.
Expressed in your own inimitable style, Malc, but there's not a single word I can disagree with there.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Well there was speculation Boris wanted to sack him too, so this must be an effort to show some spine.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
Andrew Neil: If Putin's days are indeed numbered, and the Kremlin falls into more civilised hands, then the West must be ready to react with a positive spirit and helping hand.
It must learn from the mistakes it made during Russia's last brief flirtation with democracy in the 1990s, when all manner of hucksters flooded into Moscow pushing policies that denuded the Russian people of their wealth and assets.
Above all, the West needs to remember that Russia went from centuries of tsarist tyranny to Soviet despotism without trying anything in between. There is almost no experience of democracy in Russia and we know democracy takes its time to put down roots, especially in unfertile soil.
So the West will need a longer-term strategy to embrace a post-Putin Russia and bring it for ever into the democratic community of nations. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative.
As long as Russia is in the grip of kleptocrats and dictators there can be no settled peace 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.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Considered? If he'd actually done it he would very likely have been PM by now. The moment the NI rise kicks in and causes riots* Johnson will blame it on Sunak and dump him anyway, so he had nothing to lose.
A ditherer. Like David Miliband.
*Yes, I think this is a real possibility. The anger is palpable particularly given the appalling cynicism of taxing jobs to protect pensioners.
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!
Excellent point re survivoir bias. For me one granddad in the police in WW2, (so reserved occupation, but too old anyway, had served in France 1915-18, making your point). one predeceased, one father training at Torpoint during the war, no doubt about to head off to the British Pacific Fleet when the war ended in 1945.
One of my uncles got sent to Korea near the end. The story goes something like this: he arrives, and someone asked: "What skills do you have, son?" "Well, I'm a draughtsman/architect." "Oh, we'll send you for engineering training." A few months later he completes the training. "well, son, you're an engineer now. We need clearance people. We'd better send you on a EOD course." At the end of that course, he was about to be sent to the front. And the ceasefire starts. He spends another few months in country, then comes home.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and he became an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
Quite similar to my grandparents and siblings. One grandparent in the ambulance corps and other grandfather in RAF along with his three brothers - all pilots. Two of them were killed over Tobruk which was a nasty coincidence. My grandfather flew B-25s in the lead up to and after d-day over northern occupied Europe and managed to remain unscathed apart from a large leg scar from a shrapnel hit from flak.
Andrew Neil: If Putin's days are indeed numbered, and the Kremlin falls into more civilised hands, then the West must be ready to react with a positive spirit and helping hand.
It must learn from the mistakes it made during Russia's last brief flirtation with democracy in the 1990s, when all manner of hucksters flooded into Moscow pushing policies that denuded the Russian people of their wealth and assets.
Above all, the West needs to remember that Russia went from centuries of tsarist tyranny to Soviet despotism without trying anything in between. There is almost no experience of democracy in Russia and we know democracy takes its time to put down roots, especially in unfertile soil.
So the West will need a longer-term strategy to embrace a post-Putin Russia and bring it for ever into the democratic community of nations. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative.
As long as Russia is in the grip of kleptocrats and dictators there can be no settled peace in the world.
They had a democratic election for the Constituent Assembly in November 1917.
But as the results were a humiliation for Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who came an abjectly poor second to the Socialist Revolutionary Alliance, it didn't last very long. In fact, I think it met once, for about an hour, before Trotsky turned up and did a Cromwell on 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.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Some absolutely fascinating but often appalling family stories on PB today.
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.
Talking up a great game on accepting refugees while doing as little as possible to take them in seems a long standing factor in British politics. I’ve no doubt if Labour were in power that they would also be tiptoeing gingerly rounded the subject. Given the outpouring of sympathy from the UK public towards Ukrainian refugees (for ‘reasons’) it seems odd that populist BJ and his motley crew haven’t gone for an easy win, but after seeing the ghastly Braverman on QT the other night I conclude that these people are intrinsically anti immigration whatever the context. BJ is after all the historian (lol!) who said the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by uncontrolled immigration.
You used far more words than were necessary, there
At talking up inactivity and failure, this lot are truly, well...., world-beating.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Well there was speculation Boris wanted to sack him too, so this must be an effort to show some spine.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
He had a perfect opportunity at the height of the partying scandal, but has probably blown it, unless the Police and/or Ms Gray decide to give him a second chance...
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
I need to correct my record as I disgraceful forgot about an Uncle who landed in Normandy on day 6. No idea if he saw action, but seems likely. I never knew him, not that he died in the war.
My mum's parents died before the war when she was a child. My father was rejected on medical grounds and went into supplies. My grandfather was too young for WW1 and too old for WW2. He ran a grocery in London but was bombed out and moved out to work in an aircraft factory. My great uncle built airfields. Another Uncle was in the RAF but weather forecasting.
So only 2 that actually fought (other was blown up in a tank but survived) and a friend whose Dad was a very brave pilot (and who admitted he was scared rigid every time he took off). He said that if he had of needed to bail out over the jungle he stood no chance and he twice brought a crippled plane back. He loved flying and took part in the Berlin airlift.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
My father was at Monte Casino, with the other D-Day Dodgers as they were known. But not in the first waves, which were mostly the Poles.
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
You're not making some brave and privilged stand for LGBTQ+ rights you're just doing... Putin's gay! LOL!
Given how often you insult people you don't like (sometimes it seems like there's no-one you like), it seems odd that you are complaining about this.
I look forward to the new era where personally judging the personal characteristics of political figures one doesnt like is off limits (and the criticism here would be on Putin's hypocrisy, were he reoressed). Let's see how long it lasts (no doubt this, alone of all horrible comments, is where to draw the line).
Never mind only a fool would think the original comment was saying it is wrong or funny for people in general to be gay.
The pearl clutching is just silly and the attempt at a high ground unconvincing since it requires a strawman to exist against.
And to be clear I didn't think it particularly amusing, but defend the right to say it etc etc.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Well there was speculation Boris wanted to sack him too, so this must be an effort to show some spine.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
He had a perfect opportunity at the height of the partying scandal, but has probably blown it, unless the Police and/or Ms Gray decide to give him a second chance...
The police are going through the motions at best, and no civil servant will rule a politician broke the law. If the Gray report had been a serious investigation they would have asked a retired judge to do the investigating.
He's survived (on his own admission) breaking the law and lying to parliament.
What this shows above all is we need a proper process of impeachment that is separate from the control of politicians.
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.
Your definition doesn't really help, nor does it address the issues I raised in my post, which I probably wasn't clear enough in spelling out. Let me try in different words: there is a continuum of control, and at the one end of that continuum it makes some sense to talk about imperialism.
What YOU are talking about is direct imperial rule in what we might call the "old" style: country leaders directly answerable to the imperial capital. Well, that certainly IS in place: American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and so on. Perhaps these territories are regarded as too small and insignificant* to be counted as imperial territory, but on your definition it looks like case closed: America is an empire.
But the left critique of American foreign policy is not usually focused on that, which is why the critique is actually deeper and more interesting (and, I dare say, more correct) than you suspect. It is an attempt to capture the idea that the world has changed, and the methods and nature of control of foreign lands looks quite different than it did 200 years ago. The argument I make is that this change in character is a legitimate view, and a useful frame for thinking about international relations. You view is, I think, that it is not and that empire is a fixed concept (in which case see above). There's a boring conversation we can have about your idea of empire, and I think my second paragraph ends that discussion not in your favour. But there's an interesting conversation we can have instead, which is to take on the spirit of the left critique and ask whether there's something in it. I am certain there is. I am also certain it overlaps and is influenced by anti-Americanism and views of the evils of capitalism. We can and should reject those as so much bathwater, but I think there's a baby in there too that we should not throw out.
*I'm not keen on this -- we're talking about millions of people.
Just heard a clip on Radio 4 of Obama mocking Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat “the 1980s and 1990’s called and they want their foreign policies back”….. aged well.
It might have been better had Romney won in 2012, the US having proved it could elect a black President in 2008 and Obama already having delivered his main legislative achievement, Obamacare in 2010. Not only was he right on Putin and had a successful business background to boost the economy, had he won then Trump could not have run for the GOP nomination in 2016 either as Romney would have been President running for re election
I'm sorry to say I had never heard of him until the news this week.
There was a rather sad interview with his wife (or maybe his daughter?) this week, in which she effectively said that because he was old, male and Asian and not particularly good looking, they had a real job despite lots of effort in getting any media interest in his plight, and he essentially got released on the back of the Nazanin campaign.
Just heard a clip on Radio 4 of Obama mocking Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat “the 1980s and 1990’s called and they want their foreign policies back”….. aged well.
It might have been better had Romney won in 2012, the US having proved it could elect a black President in 2008 and Obama already having delivered his main legislative achievement, Obamacare in 2010. Not only was he right on Putin and had a successful business background to boost the economy, had he won then Trump could not have run for the GOP nomination in 2016 either as Romney would have been President running for re election
He would have made Biden look like a steady hand in comparison.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Well there was speculation Boris wanted to sack him too, so this must be an effort to show some spine.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
He had a perfect opportunity at the height of the partying scandal, but has probably blown it, unless the Police and/or Ms Gray decide to give him a second chance...
The police are going through the motions at best, and no civil servant will rule a politician broke the law. If the Gray report had been a serious investigation they would have asked a retired judge to do the investigating.
He's survived (on his own admission) breaking the law and lying to parliament.
What this shows above all is we need a proper process of impeachment that is separate from the control of politicians.
I agree with most of that but I'm not sure what your last para really means. Is not impeachment inherently something within control of politicians? It's the inability to properly investigate actions for misconduct and lack of will to do anything to them that is the problem. And the government, with the excuse of idioys launching political judicial reviews, is going to over correct and prevent as much holding to account as they can.
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!
Excellent point re survivoir bias. For me one granddad in the police in WW2, (so reserved occupation, but too old anyway, had served in France 1915-18, making your point). one predeceased, one father training at Torpoint during the war, no doubt about to head off to the British Pacific Fleet when the war ended in 1945.
Since we are reminiscing , my old boy was in the 4/5th Royal Scots Fusiliers, part of the only British Mountain Division. They spent 2 years training in the Highlands , at one point they were to go to Norway but that got canned, they also changed to paratroop training but never fought in the mountains or parachuted anywhere. They went via Belgium and were in the Battle of the Scheldt, ironically below sea level. On then to clear the Roer triangle and then on to Hamburg. He never spoke much about it but did say it had made him good at jumping hedges.
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.
Talking up a great game on accepting refugees while doing as little as possible to take them in seems a long standing factor in British politics. I’ve no doubt if Labour were in power that they would also be tiptoeing gingerly rounded the subject. Given the outpouring of sympathy from the UK public towards Ukrainian refugees (for ‘reasons’) it seems odd that populist BJ and his motley crew haven’t gone for an easy win, but after seeing the ghastly Braverman on QT the other night I conclude that these people are intrinsically anti immigration whatever the context. BJ is after all the historian (lol!) who said the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by uncontrolled immigration.
You used far more words than were necessary, there
At talking up inactivity and failure, this lot are truly, well...., world-beating.
This is true, but I think the unique position of the UK in Europe wrt to refugees during the current crisis is notable: it takes some doing to make the government of Poland look classy. It seems to be a reflexive thing for certain types, see also the unending gimpery on here about Merkel taking in Syrian refugees -THE GREATEST MISTAKE BY A GERMAN CHANCELLOR SINCE ADOLF DECLARED WAR ON THE USA etc.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Some absolutely fascinating but often appalling family stories on PB today.
Parental grandfather: worst Blenheim and Boston pilot in the South African Air Force.
Maternal grandfather: portfolio career of IRA/smuggler/farmer.
Andrew Neil: If Putin's days are indeed numbered, and the Kremlin falls into more civilised hands, then the West must be ready to react with a positive spirit and helping hand.
It must learn from the mistakes it made during Russia's last brief flirtation with democracy in the 1990s, when all manner of hucksters flooded into Moscow pushing policies that denuded the Russian people of their wealth and assets.
Above all, the West needs to remember that Russia went from centuries of tsarist tyranny to Soviet despotism without trying anything in between. There is almost no experience of democracy in Russia and we know democracy takes its time to put down roots, especially in unfertile soil.
So the West will need a longer-term strategy to embrace a post-Putin Russia and bring it for ever into the democratic community of nations. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative.
As long as Russia is in the grip of kleptocrats and dictators there can be no settled peace in the world.
They had a democratic election for the Constituent Assembly in November 1917.
But as the results were a humiliation for Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who came an abjectly poor second to the Socialist Revolutionary Alliance, it didn't last very long. In fact, I think it met once, for about an hour, before Trotsky turned up and did a Cromwell on 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.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Some absolutely fascinating but often appalling family stories on PB today.
Without meaning to sound mawkish or a bit twatish it was thinking about what my grandfather and his brothers went through during the war that was a very good reality check when I was locked down on my own during covid.
I honestly did just remind myself that I wasn’t having people try and blow me out of the sky, not knowing each time I took off whether I was coming back, and not knowing I was dropping death on people that put my misery into perspective….
Andrew Neil: If Putin's days are indeed numbered, and the Kremlin falls into more civilised hands, then the West must be ready to react with a positive spirit and helping hand.
It must learn from the mistakes it made during Russia's last brief flirtation with democracy in the 1990s, when all manner of hucksters flooded into Moscow pushing policies that denuded the Russian people of their wealth and assets.
Above all, the West needs to remember that Russia went from centuries of tsarist tyranny to Soviet despotism without trying anything in between. There is almost no experience of democracy in Russia and we know democracy takes its time to put down roots, especially in unfertile soil.
So the West will need a longer-term strategy to embrace a post-Putin Russia and bring it for ever into the democratic community of nations. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative.
As long as Russia is in the grip of kleptocrats and dictators there can be no settled peace in the world.
Andrew Neil on the downsides of unrestrained privatisation at knock-down prices to croneys. Or possibly Jeremy Corbyn.
Got to laugh at his Twitter strapline, which notes that he is Member of Parliament for Plymouth Moor View and also exorts that #plymouthdeservesbetter.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Some absolutely fascinating but often appalling family stories on PB today.
Carnyx, I know you like books , if you get a chance , look for MOUNTAIN AND FLOOD The History of 52nd (Lowland) Division. It is a very good read.
Mail (via the Telegraph): Rishi Sunak's relationship with Boris Johnson 'completely disintegrated' to the point where the Chancellor 'considered resigning' because of a row over the planned rise in National Insurance contributions, an MP has claimed.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
Well there was speculation Boris wanted to sack him too, so this must be an effort to show some spine.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
He had a perfect opportunity at the height of the partying scandal, but has probably blown it, unless the Police and/or Ms Gray decide to give him a second chance...
The police are going through the motions at best, and no civil servant will rule a politician broke the law. If the Gray report had been a serious investigation they would have asked a retired judge to do the investigating.
He's survived (on his own admission) breaking the law and lying to parliament.
What this shows above all is we need a proper process of impeachment that is separate from the control of politicians.
I agree with most of that but I'm not sure what your last para really means. Is not impeachment inherently something within control of politicians? It's the inability to properly investigate actions for misconduct and lack of will to do anything to them that is the problem. And the government, with the excuse of idioys launching political judicial reviews, is going to over correct and prevent as much holding to account as they can.
Indeed, we actually have an impeachment process, though as I understand it no confidence motions and other mechanisms have largely made it redundant. Like you, I'm not sure how you can create an apolitical process that has intensely political implications.
The remedy, for good or ill, is a political one. Either the party turfs him out, or the electorate.
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.
Talking up a great game on accepting refugees while doing as little as possible to take them in seems a long standing factor in British politics. I’ve no doubt if Labour were in power that they would also be tiptoeing gingerly rounded the subject. Given the outpouring of sympathy from the UK public towards Ukrainian refugees (for ‘reasons’) it seems odd that populist BJ and his motley crew haven’t gone for an easy win, but after seeing the ghastly Braverman on QT the other night I conclude that these people are intrinsically anti immigration whatever the context. BJ is after all the historian (lol!) who said the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by uncontrolled immigration.
I think you're probably right. Itd be easy to be more sympathetic on the Ukraine issue without being dragged to it and without changing their general stance, but they seemed terrified of looking 'weak' on the issue and no consideration given to the situation.
I used to think many of them personally were not that bothered by immigration but it was a political imperative for them, but that doesnt seem the case.
We can but hope. And that's said without any starry eyed admiration for Labour.
Country needs a change, but I don’t have any enthusiasm for starmers mob yet.
I don't need any enthusiasm for Starmer. People who are reasonably sane, unlike Rees-Mogg, fairly intelligent, unlike Dorries, Patel or Williamson, and actually follow the fecking law unlike Johnson would be a very refreshing change. That's good enough.
Yes, this is very true. But labour still has its own idiots, such as Abbot, Mcdonell etc. But we do need a change.
Abbott, McDonnell, Lavery, Gardiner et al are on the backbenches and there they will stay.
And they are all still, unbelievable though this may seem, not as bad as that lightweight fucktarded bit of fluff Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I love the word fucktard (or fucktarded), and I commend your efforts to keep it current.
I guess you think it’s still acceptable to use a derivative of “retard” as an insult. I thought you were better than that.
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!
Excellent point re survivoir bias. For me one granddad in the police in WW2, (so reserved occupation, but too old anyway, had served in France 1915-18, making your point). one predeceased, one father training at Torpoint during the war, no doubt about to head off to the British Pacific Fleet when the war ended in 1945.
One of my uncles got sent to Korea near the end. The story goes something like this: he arrives, and someone asked: "What skills do you have, son?" "Well, I'm a draughtsman/architect." "Oh, we'll send you for engineering training." A few months later he completes the training. "well, son, you're an engineer now. We need clearance people. We'd better send you on a EOD course." At the end of that course, he was about to be sent to the front. And the ceasefire starts. He spends another few months in country, then comes home.
Lucky.
See my post re a friend's father. Always sent where the Germans weren't. Lots of training, including how to ski (what!). Never saw the enemy the whole war. Very lucky.
I'm sorry to say I had never heard of him until the news this week.
There was a rather sad interview with his wife (or maybe his daughter?) this week, in which she effectively said that because he was old, male and Asian and not particularly good looking, they had a real job despite lots of effort in getting any media interest in his plight, and he essentially got released on the back of the Nazanin campaign.
I can see that. Itd be sad, but Nazanin being younger and attractive does make media attention easier. And it's quite probable I have read him mentioned, albeit not as much, and not remembered it for the same reason.
I'm sorry to say I had never heard of him until the news this week.
Interesting isn’t it? No doubt the vigour of the campaign around Nazanin has something to do with it, but I can’t help thinking that her sex, the poor daughter, and frankly her attractiveness made her story of far more interest to the media in general. Not unlike the greater focus on the blond white woman abducted and murdered vs any non white women abducted and murdered.
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.
The idea of Brexit levelling up the regions of the North and the Midlands always was a mirage. It is a turbocharged fantasy on the back of a pandemic and in the midst of an economic crisis.
Throw some short term cash up the M1 by all means. In reality it won't help much in eighteen months, but it might look good on paper through the smoke and mirrors.
This is my great grand uncle Herbert just after signing up as a Royal Artillery gunner. He was captured at Singapore and died in a Japanese POW camp in Thailand.
Got to laugh at his Twitter strapline, which notes that he is Member of Parliament for Plymouth Moor View and also exorts that #plymouthdeservesbetter.
Admirably honest self assessment. Dont be so hard on yourself Johnny.
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
You're not making some brave and privilged stand for LGBTQ+ rights you're just doing... Putin's gay! LOL!
Given how often you insult people you don't like (sometimes it seems like there's no-one you like), it seems odd that you are complaining about this.
I look forward to the new era where personally judging the personal characteristics of political figures one doesnt like is off limits (and the criticism here would be on Putin's hypocrisy, were he reoressed). Let's see how long it lasts (no doubt this, alone of all horrible comments, is where to draw the line).
Never mind only a fool would think the original comment was saying it is wrong or funny for people in general to be gay.
The pearl clutching is just silly and the attempt at a high ground unconvincing since it requires a strawman to exist against.
And to be clear I didn't think it particularly amusing, but defend the right to say it etc etc.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
Some absolutely fascinating but often appalling family stories on PB today.
Without meaning to sound mawkish or a bit twatish it was thinking about what my grandfather and his brothers went through during the war that was a very good reality check when I was locked down on my own during covid.
I honestly did just remind myself that I wasn’t having people try and blow me out of the sky, not knowing each time I took off whether I was coming back, and not knowing I was dropping death on people that put my misery into perspective….
Tell me about it.
I got to read my Dad's war correspondence, about 400 letters, during lockdown. He would describe, for example, casually walking down Kingsland High Road during an air raid and frustrated that the railway was out because of bomb damage, so he didn't get to see my Mum that day. He embarked for North Africa in Jan 1941 and didn't return home for two years, having at one point been reported 'missing, presumed dead.'
So when I hear people complaining about the privations of Covid.....
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.
It’s his repression of gay rights that is unpleasant and the observed phenomenon that many homophobes are in fact repressed homosexuals invites mockery of him personally. I take it you took offence at Channel 4’s “Gay Mountain” Sochi Olympics video too?
You're not making some brave and privilged stand for LGBTQ+ rights you're just doing... Putin's gay! LOL!
Given how often you insult people you don't like (sometimes it seems like there's no-one you like), it seems odd that you are complaining about this.
I look forward to the new era where personally judging the personal characteristics of political figures one doesnt like is off limits (and the criticism here would be on Putin's hypocrisy, were he reoressed). Let's see how long it lasts (no doubt this, alone of all horrible comments, is where to draw the line).
Never mind only a fool would think the original comment was saying it is wrong or funny for people in general to be gay.
The pearl clutching is just silly and the attempt at a high ground unconvincing since it requires a strawman to exist against.
And to be clear I didn't think it particularly amusing, but defend the right to say it etc etc.
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.
The idea of Brexit levelling up the regions of the North and the Midlands always was a mirage. It is a turbocharged fantasy on the back of a pandemic and in the midst of an economic crisis.
Throw some short term cash up the M1 by all means. In reality it won't help much in eighteen months, but it might look good on paper through the smoke and mirrors.
How anyone was ever taken in by that one is what amazes me. What were the Northerners thinking of , leopard's do not change their spots. They use samew mince for Scotland every time as well and many fools are taken in time and time again despite the historical evidence that after they have your vote it is back to spending all the money in the south.
Since we’re doing proxy war service, my dad spent the last couple of years of WWII on a windy NI RNAS in crash crew. Perhaps because he was youngest, or a wild ****, he was put in the asbestos suit pulling out scorched aircrew. One particular aircraft (the Barracuda?) was a nightmare because if it belly landed the obvious escape hatch for the radio operator was blocked. He said their screams stayed with him.
As I’ve bored on previously he also volunteered with the Glosters for the Korean War so he was certainly up for it, whatever ‘it’ is.
All my ancestors seem to have missed the wars (which is probably why I am here an posting! - survivor bias in action again!) - Grandfathers too old for WW2 and too young for WW1 - My great Uncle Alf ( what woudl be called today a young offender) did serve in North Africa and then Italy in WW2 but got into so many fights (with army colleagues not necessarily Germans) , when my Grandmother and Great Grandmother wrote to his Officer to say they never hear from him , they got replies back saying he was in the "glass house" - which I presume is what Steve McQueen was throwing his baseball around in in the Great Escape. HE was a good footballer though and when Chanel 4 did Serie A football he used to tell me he had played in such an such stadium (as was featured) against Italian teams at the end of the war (he did not use the word Italian though but a more politically incorrect term for them)
I'm sorry to say I had never heard of him until the news this week.
Interesting isn’t it? No doubt the vigour of the campaign around Nazanin has something to do with it, but I can’t help thinking that her sex, the poor daughter, and frankly her attractiveness made her story of far more interest to the media in general. Not unlike the greater focus on the blond white woman abducted and murdered vs any non white women abducted and murdered.
Her husband's family are middle class Hampshire and I suspect also had the contacts to play the media game.
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.
Talking up a great game on accepting refugees while doing as little as possible to take them in seems a long standing factor in British politics. I’ve no doubt if Labour were in power that they would also be tiptoeing gingerly rounded the subject. Given the outpouring of sympathy from the UK public towards Ukrainian refugees (for ‘reasons’) it seems odd that populist BJ and his motley crew haven’t gone for an easy win, but after seeing the ghastly Braverman on QT the other night I conclude that these people are intrinsically anti immigration whatever the context. BJ is after all the historian (lol!) who said the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by uncontrolled immigration.
I think you're probably right. Itd be easy to be more sympathetic on the Ukraine issue without being dragged to it and without changing their general stance, but they seemed terrified of looking 'weak' on the issue and no consideration given to the situation.
I used to think many of them personally were not that bothered by immigration but it was a political imperative for them, but that doesnt seem the case.
I find this lot’s conflation of criticism of their policies on refugees with criticism of ‘the generosity of the great British public’ particularly disgusting.
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.
The idea of Brexit levelling up the regions of the North and the Midlands always was a mirage. It is a turbocharged fantasy on the back of a pandemic and in the midst of an economic crisis.
Throw some short term cash up the M1 by all means. In reality it won't help much in eighteen months, but it might look good on paper through the smoke and mirrors.
How anyone was ever taken in by that one is what amazes me. What were the Northerners thinking of , leopard's do not change their spots. They use samew mince for Scotland every time as well and many fools are taken in time and time again despite the historical evidence that after they have your vote it is back to spending all the money in the south.
When the feeble remain campaign just offered more of the same and the reality of the same is minimum wage jobs in call centres, warehouses and supermarkets they had not got too much to lose.
All my ancestors seem to have missed the wars (which is probably why I am here an posting! - survivor bias in action again!) - Grandfathers too old for WW2 and too young for WW1 - My great Uncle Alf ( what woudl be called today a young offender) did serve in North Africa in WW2 but got into so many fights (with army colleagues not necessarily Germans) , when my Grandmother and Great Grandmother wrote to his Officer to say they never hear from him , they got replies back saying he was in the "glass house" - which I presume is what Steve McQueen was throwing his baseball around in in the Great Escape. HE was a good footballer though and when Chanel 4 did Serie A football he used to tell me he had played in such an such stadium (as was featured) against Italian teams (he did not use the word Italian though but a more politically incorrect term for them)
My grandfather was a professional soldier in the Manchester Regiment and was in Ladysmith, then retired before returning to fight in WW1 and despite coming under heavy fire with some loses, he led his men to safety though he was injured and was unable to continue his army service
Did I read it correctly that the next GE could be as late as February 25
Extraordinary if true as that is virtually 3 years away
It would have had to be by May 24 under the FTPA, so not sure what the new Bill would do that would extend the life of this parliament to over 5 years - do you have a link?
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.
The idea of Brexit levelling up the regions of the North and the Midlands always was a mirage. It is a turbocharged fantasy on the back of a pandemic and in the midst of an economic crisis.
Throw some short term cash up the M1 by all means. In reality it won't help much in eighteen months, but it might look good on paper through the smoke and mirrors.
How anyone was ever taken in by that one is what amazes me. What were the Northerners thinking of , leopard's do not change their spots. They use samew mince for Scotland every time as well and many fools are taken in time and time again despite the historical evidence that after they have your vote it is back to spending all the money in the south.
When the feeble remain campaign just offered more of the same and the reality of the same is minimum wage jobs in call centres, warehouses and supermarkets they had not got too much to lose.
True, but I would rather bite my hand off than vote for that lot, you know for sure what they will do. No good choice in UK at present, just a case of who will be least worse.
All my ancestors seem to have missed the wars (which is probably why I am here an posting! - survivor bias in action again!) - Grandfathers too old for WW2 and too young for WW1 - My great Uncle Alf ( what woudl be called today a young offender) did serve in North Africa and then Italy in WW2 but got into so many fights (with army colleagues not necessarily Germans) , when my Grandmother and Great Grandmother wrote to his Officer to say they never hear from him , they got replies back saying he was in the "glass house" - which I presume is what Steve McQueen was throwing his baseball around in in the Great Escape. HE was a good footballer though and when Chanel 4 did Serie A football he used to tell me he had played in such an such stadium (as was featured) against Italian teams at the end of the war (he did not use the word Italian though but a more politically incorrect term for them)
The Glasshouse could be nasty but on active service in North Africa it was unlikely to be any worse than manning your gun in the desert. Dad got thrown in there from time to time, but made light of it. Since the regiment was constantly on the move you were unlikely to be in there for very long.
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.
One of my grandfathers was in the education corps in India during ww2 so did no actual fighting. My other grandfather was in the merchant navy so didn't fight either although his boat was sunk by a German submarine in the Indian Ocean (he survived). One of my grandmothers drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth so she probably saw more energy action and death and destruction than anyone else in the family.
Dad was one of five brothers, all were actively involved in the war - three as gunners, one in the RAF, one in the ambulance corps. Three were unscathed, Dad was wounded at Tobruk and invalided out of action; his youngest brother Albert was amongst the first into Belsen and the experience deranged him to the extent that he never properly recovered and hebecame an alcoholic.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
My paternal granddad was in DEMS, serving on ships at sea, before he got posted ashore to Portsmouth because of his maths skills (a captain said he was 'wasted' at sea.)
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
Had one family member who was taken prisoner at Monte Casino - suffered mental health issues until his early death.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
My father was at Monte Casino, with the other D-Day Dodgers as they were known. But not in the first waves, which were mostly the Poles.
Father was a Squadron Leader in the RAF during WW2. Saw Belsen. Worst experience of his life.
An Irish great-uncle was in the RAMC in WW1. One of his brothers was in the Irish Republican Brotherhood. I have his Fenian penny marked with his initials. Further back an ancestor fought in the Boer War and another in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war where he got an honour from the French government.
My Italian grandfather fought at Caporetto. My mother and her siblings remembered what it was like to hide in bomb shelters night after night, to have their home bombed and to have to flee to a place of safety, to have the family split up and be taken in by strangers.
War was pretty much a constant background affecting every day life for the generations before us.
Just heard a clip on Radio 4 of Obama mocking Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat “the 1980s and 1990’s called and they want their foreign policies back”….. aged well.
It might have been better had Romney won in 2012, the US having proved it could elect a black President in 2008 and Obama already having delivered his main legislative achievement, Obamacare in 2010. Not only was he right on Putin and had a successful business background to boost the economy, had he won then Trump could not have run for the GOP nomination in 2016 either as Romney would have been President running for re election
He would have made Biden look like a steady hand in comparison.
He would have been mentally active and engaged unlike Biden.
In fact a President Romney could well have been the best President of the 21st century. However too late now
Comments
Russian cosmonauts board ISS wearing colours of Ukraine flag
Trio appeared to get changed shortly before arrival at space station and one said every crew could choose their own suit
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/19/russian-cosmonauts-board-iss-wearing-colours-of-ukraine-flag
A smart opposition would be throwing that back at them at every opportunity in the campaign. Especially in the red wall.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/16/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-anoosheh-ashoori-iran-evin-prison
He seems to be regarded as the Idea! guy of Putin's political party.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k
In 1973.
If both act similarly I really dont think it makes a difference if one has more openly distasteful motivations than the other. If anything it just means one is more honest with itself than the other. Bleat about peace while giving succour to war mongers and you're just a self satisfied hypocrite.
I suspect they’ve realised they have made a lot of promises that they have not delivered on and are not likely to deliver on and I would expect a slew of Gordon brown style announcements which merely just reannounce stuff already promised to look like they are doing something.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-cosmonauts-board-international-space-station-in-ukraine-colors-2022-3?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&r=US&IR=T
Dmitry Rogozin is the administrator that Trump would have chosen, normally.
Shit, it is isnt it?
I have utter contempt for him. He is a little encapsulation of all that is wrong with Russia. Its fall personified.
Edit: Bridenstine was great. Shortly after the pandemic started, he appeared on a space podcast where he went at length into how NASA had coped with the pandemic. Then, when the conversation changed to technical topics, he talked about them as well. He was admirably on top of the NASA brief. IMO NASA misses him.
I suspect they represent a fairly characteristic cohort.
Mr Sunak reportedly made the comments to a Tory MP while Boris Johnson contemplated scrapping the planned 1.25 percentage point increase as he faced calls to resign over Partygate.
The Tory MP told the Telegraph: 'Their relationship had completely disintegrated. [Mr Sunak] said he was considering resigning.'
A lot of people expected Bridenstine to be like that, since he was picked by Trump. Instead he did things like getting the NASA science money for earth observation increased. And told Boeing to fuck off when they tried to get Commercial Crew changed to just them (Boeing). Which would have created an interesting situation at the moment....
We recently discovered that one of my mum's uncles was evacuated off the beach at Dunkirk. Aside from that, my maternal grandmother worked in the war rooms at Liverpool before she got married and had my mum.
As far as we are aware, we have never lost a member of our family in war. On that count, we have been blessed. And I hope that continues.
As he was put in place to be a yes man it's a good thing they dont get along as much.
It must learn from the mistakes it made during Russia's last brief flirtation with democracy in the 1990s, when all manner of hucksters flooded into Moscow pushing policies that denuded the Russian people of their wealth and assets.
Above all, the West needs to remember that Russia went from centuries of tsarist tyranny to Soviet despotism without trying anything in between. There is almost no experience of democracy in Russia and we know democracy takes its time to put down roots, especially in unfertile soil.
So the West will need a longer-term strategy to embrace a post-Putin Russia and bring it for ever into the democratic community of nations. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative.
As long as Russia is in the grip of kleptocrats and dictators there can be no settled peace in the world.
Another was on ground crew for bombers - hosing out the remains of rear gunners on return to base.
Grandfather was blown up in the air by an artillery shell and had problems walking for the rest of his life.
A ditherer. Like David Miliband.
*Yes, I think this is a real possibility. The anger is palpable particularly given the appalling cynicism of taxing jobs to protect pensioners.
"Well, I'm a draughtsman/architect."
"Oh, we'll send you for engineering training."
A few months later he completes the training. "well, son, you're an engineer now. We need clearance people. We'd better send you on a EOD course."
At the end of that course, he was about to be sent to the front. And the ceasefire starts. He spends another few months in country, then comes home.
Lucky.
But as the results were a humiliation for Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who came an abjectly poor second to the Socialist Revolutionary Alliance, it didn't last very long. In fact, I think it met once, for about an hour, before Trotsky turned up and did a Cromwell on them.
At talking up inactivity and failure, this lot are truly, well...., world-beating.
My mum's parents died before the war when she was a child. My father was rejected on medical grounds and went into supplies. My grandfather was too young for WW1 and too old for WW2. He ran a grocery in London but was bombed out and moved out to work in an aircraft factory. My great uncle built airfields. Another Uncle was in the RAF but weather forecasting.
So only 2 that actually fought (other was blown up in a tank but survived) and a friend whose Dad was a very brave pilot (and who admitted he was scared rigid every time he took off). He said that if he had of needed to bail out over the jungle he stood no chance and he twice brought a crippled plane back. He loved flying and took part in the Berlin airlift.
Never mind only a fool would think the original comment was saying it is wrong or funny for people in general to be gay.
The pearl clutching is just silly and the attempt at a high ground unconvincing since it requires a strawman to exist against.
And to be clear I didn't think it particularly amusing, but defend the right to say it etc etc.
He's survived (on his own admission) breaking the law and lying to parliament.
What this shows above all is we need a proper process of impeachment that is separate from the control of politicians.
What YOU are talking about is direct imperial rule in what we might call the "old" style: country leaders directly answerable to the imperial capital. Well, that certainly IS in place: American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and so on. Perhaps these territories are regarded as too small and insignificant* to be counted as imperial territory, but on your definition it looks like case closed: America is an empire.
But the left critique of American foreign policy is not usually focused on that, which is why the critique is actually deeper and more interesting (and, I dare say, more correct) than you suspect. It is an attempt to capture the idea that the world has changed, and the methods and nature of control of foreign lands looks quite different than it did 200 years ago.
The argument I make is that this change in character is a legitimate view, and a useful frame for thinking about international relations. You view is, I think, that it is not and that empire is a fixed concept (in which case see above). There's a boring conversation we can have about your idea of empire, and I think my second paragraph ends that discussion not in your favour. But there's an interesting conversation we can have instead, which is to take on the spirit of the left critique and ask whether there's something in it. I am certain there is. I am also certain it overlaps and is influenced by anti-Americanism and views of the evils of capitalism. We can and should reject those as so much bathwater, but I think there's a baby in there too that we should not throw out.
*I'm not keen on this -- we're talking about millions of people.
https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1504923691364360194
He never spoke much about it but did say it had made him good at jumping hedges.
Maternal grandfather: portfolio career of IRA/smuggler/farmer.
I honestly did just remind myself that I wasn’t having people try and blow me out of the sky, not knowing each time I took off whether I was coming back, and not knowing I was dropping death on people that put my misery into perspective….
The remedy, for good or ill, is a political one. Either the party turfs him out, or the electorate.
I used to think many of them personally were not that bothered by immigration but it was a political imperative for them, but that doesnt seem the case.
Not unlike the greater focus on the blond white woman abducted and murdered vs any non white women abducted and murdered.
Throw some short term cash up the M1 by all means. In reality it won't help much in eighteen months, but it might look good on paper through the smoke and mirrors.
I got to read my Dad's war correspondence, about 400 letters, during lockdown. He would describe, for example, casually walking down Kingsland High Road during an air raid and frustrated that the railway was out because of bomb damage, so he didn't get to see my Mum that day. He embarked for North Africa in Jan 1941 and didn't return home for two years, having at one point been reported 'missing, presumed dead.'
So when I hear people complaining about the privations of Covid.....
They use samew mince for Scotland every time as well and many fools are taken in time and time again despite the historical evidence that after they have your vote it is back to spending all the money in the south.
As I’ve bored on previously he also volunteered with the Glosters for the Korean War so he was certainly up for it, whatever ‘it’ is.
A genuine question
Did I read it correctly that the next GE could be as late as February 25
Extraordinary if true as that is virtually 3 years away
I guess most of us are of an age that we didn't suffer at all but are very close to many of those that did.
Also interesting the number of reports of the long term mental effects of the war on those who took part and survived.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-60804050
But could be wrong.
An Irish great-uncle was in the RAMC in WW1. One of his brothers was in the Irish Republican Brotherhood. I have his Fenian penny marked with his initials. Further back an ancestor fought in the Boer War and another in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war where he got an honour from the French government.
My Italian grandfather fought at Caporetto. My mother and her siblings remembered what it was like to hide in bomb shelters night after night, to have their home bombed and to have to flee to a place of safety, to have the family split up and be taken in by strangers.
War was pretty much a constant background affecting every day life for the generations before us.
In fact a President Romney could well have been the best President of the 21st century. However too late now