Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
True, but it’s not unfair to blame Johnson for carelessly increasing the risk to her.
I’d say the question to ask the Johnson defending rump is do they think that BJ experienced a single moment of unease, remorse or lost sleep over Nazanin (a question that of course could be asked about everything relating to him aside from what aided his ambition and personal comfort)?
The Putin comparison is of course absurd; has someone declared open season on ridiculous, hyperbolic analogies or something? BJ is of course crass, narcisstic, amoral, lying Trump without the grifting talent.
The Trump analogy is ALSO hyperbolic nonsense. Boris has many many flaws but he hasn’t tried to overthrow the democratic process
The only British people that tried that were, you know, his most bitter opponents: the Remoaners
Which of crass, narcisstic, amoral and lying do you think doesn’t apply to both Trump and BJ?
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
True, but it’s not unfair to blame Johnson for carelessly increasing the risk to her.
I’d say the question to ask the Johnson defending rump is do they think that BJ experienced a single moment of unease, remorse or lost sleep over Nazanin (a question that of course could be asked about everything relating to him aside from what aided his ambition and personal comfort)?
The Putin comparison is of course absurd; has someone declared open season on ridiculous, hyperbolic analogies or something? BJ is of course crass, narcisstic, amoral, lying Trump without the grifting talent.
The Trump analogy is ALSO hyperbolic nonsense. Boris has many many flaws but he hasn’t tried to overthrow the democratic process
The only British people that tried that were, you know, his most bitter opponents: the Remoaners
Which of crass, narcisstic, amoral and lying do you think doesn’t apply to both Trump and BJ?
All of them apply to both. I agree with you
But what happened on January 6 takes Trump to a vastly different level of political venality, to my mind. And Boris has not attempted anything like that
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
The annoying thing about greens for me is that they don't accept how far we've come. True, we've got a long way to go, but the energy sector is so massively different to how it was a decade ago, let alone two decades.
For too many environmentalists, everything is always awful, and we're doing terribly. It warns me that even when we get to net-zero, there'll be another 'crisis' to be dealt with.
It's all stick with them. Occasionally it might be nice to hear: "We've done okay so far, but we cannot rest on our laurels - we need to accelerate." Instead too many act as if we've done nothing.
It's partly political, I think. The wrong people are implementing the policies. So when you mention the net zero commitment, horse out of ICE cars etc..... that is met with actual anger. One chap at a local meeting stated that the government is increasing emissions and denies climate change.
The other issue is that the for a chunk of the Green movement, moving society to net zero is the wrong answer. They want to implement Green Communism - the vision that was outline by a lady (forget the name) a while back - everyone lives in tower blocks, does government allocated work. Travel is government controlled and allocated. Strict birth control policies to reduce the population.
I think the name you are forgetting is “everyone on SAGE”
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
Not in the box marked evil, for sure.
And say just the one person has been killed in Afghanistan who would have escaped and survived but for jolly old Boris, does that tilt the balance?
Was there intent to kill that one person?
Compare with bombing a clearly marked school or theatre used as a shelter for women and children, destroyed with a precision weapon. Likening Boris to Putin in the evil stakes just destroys the credibility of the person making that comparison. Assuming they had any in the first place.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
It was a callous decision that has doubtless cost many Ukrainian lives.
Why so different from Johnson in Afghanistan?
I strongly doubt that claim. You think German arms exports will have turned this around? Do you think present access to munitions has been the limiting factor in the ability of the Ukrainian army to mount a defence? I don't.
Also, I need to underscore this because I don't think you've quite understood it: Germany has a blanket ban on arms exports to conflict zones for which they have made an exception in supplying Ukraine. The implication in your post is that Germany has singled out Ukraine to not be supplied whereas as the opposite is now much closer to the truth.
Previous: blanket ban Now: blanket ban with pro-Ukraine exception.
The Germans were laughing at the Ukrainians because it would all be over in 48 hours FFS.
They've been shamed into helping out. There's nothing noble in it.
I didn't say there was anything noble, I'm trying to correct your implication that Germany maliciously singled out Ukraine when in reality they first adhered to a blanket ban, then changed to making an exception in Ukraine's favour. I don't want to interfere with your moral judgements but it's better if they aren't based on a misunderstanding of the basic facts.
I know about Germany's blanket ban. It obviously wasn't that important to them or they wouldn't have since abandoned it.
I think the delay in their realisation of this was as "evil" as anything Boris did in Afghanistan.
Who else this year has been affected by Germany's "Blanket Ban"?
It was a blanket covering Ukraine.
THIS is the moronic comment!
Who needs anyone agreeing with them when Roger with a silent 'w' and 'n' disagrees?
The history of how many, many Asians were forced out of Africa, after various countries gained independence is neglected. It wasn't just the lunatic cannibal chap who did this.
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
Dropped by to read the BTL comments which are usually enlightening. Today it is filled with offensive bile.
Will drop back later but regular and frequent commenters might reflect on the impact the tone of their comments has on the choices of how the many lurkers here spend their time. The gardening suddenly seems more enticing.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
I find the lack of UK focus on tidal power a deeply tragic reflection on our political classes and interest groups.
All the benefits of wind/solar but super super predictable, basically free power.
Recently went to a talk by these people https://www.ourtide.org/ who are trying to just raise awareness of the pro/cons of each option.
If we committed to doing tidal then ramping up north sea gas/oil in the short term would make sense (at least then we would have a plan) instead we go for the harder nuclear options.
MrB
Any ideas on how we make this happen? I can write letters, press releases, social media posts etc. I'm all in on this, let's just do it now.
Another angle to Johnson's Brexit comments is that the EU is quite likely to disappoint Ukraine regarding how willing it will be to conduct a fast accession process. It's also not absurd to argue that being caught in a tug of war between two competing customs unions was one of the root causes of the conflict, and Brexit gives the UK the opportunity to stand for a different model.
I'm sorry, but it definitely is absurd to suggest that competing customs unions was the cause of the conflict. The cause of the conflict was entirely in the fascist fever dream of a small number of people at the heart of the Russian state, and the despotic and violent power structures that preserve them in power. There is no sense in which Ukraine, the EU, the UK, the USA, or anyone outside the Kremlin is in any meaningful way a cause, even a minor one.
It's rarely as simple as this in international politics, but this time it is.
Russian nationalists were enraged by the prospect of the EU customs border regime applying between what they saw as the Russian cities of Kharkiv and Belgorod. There is a remarkable parallel with the issues raised by the Northern Ireland backstop. This is not a justification of Russian agression, but it's necessary to understand the background.
Yes, I'm aware of the excuses that some Russians have given, but it's a little like a man murdering his ex because she went on a date with someone else. You would never suggest that the date was a root cause because all that does is raise the awkward question of why 99.99% of similar dates don't result in the same response. Also, if it hadn't been this "provocation" it would have been another. The Russian narrative of the causes of the war relies on an already absurd and broken conception of who is allowed to do what, to the extent that it carried zero explanatory weight.
It's not an excuse but does have explanatory weight.
Putin hasn't invaded Belarus. Why? Because he didn't need to. Ideally he would have wanted to keep Ukraine in the same position. Ukrainians had every right to choose a different path, but many in the West were naive about what the stakes were.
Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make, if Ukraine wanted to be a Westernised democracy rather than a Neo-Communist dictatorship then I would suggest it was incumbent on the West, the EU and NATO to support them in this. I know what you are doing is not victim blaming as such but it is blaming those who wanted to support the victim rather than blaming the wholly unreasonable behaviour of the attacker.
Should the western democracies be content - or at least complicit - in sitting back whilst countries are threatened and bullied into becoming satellites for dictatorships? I don't believe so. Yes there is a place for Realpolitik and I am not saying in any way I support Western military intervention in every tin pot dictatorship to try and force them to be democracies. That Blair doctrine is, I think, wrong headed. But the idea that we should not actively be encouraging and helping countries to achieve what we are fortunate enough to have, through targeted politics and trade seems to be a negation of our morals and beliefs.
No, I'm saying that the security aspect should have been considered from the beginning. It's not the countries that supported Ukraine that are culpable but those that didn't while at the same time appeasing Russia.
“Vladimir Putin has 'finally agreed 'to face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky after more than three weeks of war, it has been reported. The two leaders have let their diplomatic teams conduct peace talks on the neutral ground since shortly after the start of the conflict on February 24, but a BBC correspondent has confirmed the two will meet in person”
If true, that's extremely good news, as they were only going to meet when the deal was in a written form that they could both subscribe to.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
The annoying thing about greens for me is that they don't accept how far we've come. True, we've got a long way to go, but the energy sector is so massively different to how it was a decade ago, let alone two decades.
For too many environmentalists, everything is always awful, and we're doing terribly. It warns me that even when we get to net-zero, there'll be another 'crisis' to be dealt with.
It's all stick with them. Occasionally it might be nice to hear: "We've done okay so far, but we cannot rest on our laurels - we need to accelerate." Instead too many act as if we've done nothing.
You are right if you listened to some environmentalists "nothing is being done", in reality the UK has built a huge amount of renewable energy generation in recent years. The Dogger Bank Wind Farm is being constructed right now, that is 4.8 GW once it is completed. There are several other multi-GW projects in the pipeline as well.
“Vladimir Putin has 'finally agreed 'to face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky after more than three weeks of war, it has been reported. The two leaders have let their diplomatic teams conduct peace talks on the neutral ground since shortly after the start of the conflict on February 24, but a BBC correspondent has confirmed the two will meet in person”
If true, that's extremely good news, as they were only going to meet when the deal was in a written form that they could both subscribe to.
I think that's based on Broadcasting House this morning. Presenter was talking to a correspondent in Ukraine who had been told 'informally' that Putin had agreed to it in principle, but not yet to a date. Still better than 'f**k off', but not quite a done deal.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
This forum is in danger of becoming an echo chamber of anti-Borisovian bile
The Tories are only 4-5 points behind, in mid-term, after 12 years in office. Their leader is a marmitey fellow, but is famously good at campaigning. He faces a boring plank of an opposition leader, with no campaigning record, a boring Woke Islington lawyer who cannot say “only women have cervixes”
I get that Boris gives apoplexy to many. Including 90% of PB-ers. And I can see why (especially if you’re in any way Woke, Remoanery, etc). But this red mist of anger and contempt risks clouding collective PB judgement.
He could still easily win the next GE
I’m not sure that you’re quite the chap to carry a message warning of the red mist of anger and contempt clouding collective PB judgement.
Surely I’m the poacher turned gamekeeper, in this instance
Talking of apoplexy, I have an internal malc-o-meter which estimates that the likelihood of a YES vote in an imminent indyref is inversely related to the invective spilling out of @malcolmg
In short: the angrier he gets the less likely is Sindy, and vice versa
Given that he’s always quite angry, this has reassured me the separatists will not win any time soon
Judging by today’s performance, the chances of a YES vote right now seem minuscule, and indyref2 has receded into the late 2040s
I’m old school, I use the ‘SNP honeymoon about to end’ guys being unerringly consistent as my metric of Indy being within our grasp.
Ross for next FM was a real cracker, how doolally has he gone since he denounced Boris and then went to damascus and found himself again. Kerr had his teeth falling out whilst saying why are we always talking about Indyref2, real comedy club stuff. Talent , you ain't seen nothing yet, I hope I never have to be treated by that Doctor they say is a brilliant politician , he gives idiots a bad name.
It's pretty hilarious that the guy below who said the priority if he was pm for a day would be tougher enforcement against Gypsy Travellers is now reproaching Scotland for being a far more bitter and inward-facing place. To use one of your favourite lines, he must think our heids button up the back.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
True, but it’s not unfair to blame Johnson for carelessly increasing the risk to her.
I’d say the question to ask the Johnson defending rump is do they think that BJ experienced a single moment of unease, remorse or lost sleep over Nazanin (a question that of course could be asked about everything relating to him aside from what aided his ambition and personal comfort)?
The Putin comparison is of course absurd; has someone declared open season on ridiculous, hyperbolic analogies or something? BJ is of course crass, narcisstic, amoral, lying Trump without the grifting talent.
The Trump analogy is ALSO hyperbolic nonsense. Boris has many many flaws but he hasn’t tried to overthrow the democratic process
The only British people that tried that were, you know, his most bitter opponents: the Remoaners
Which of crass, narcisstic, amoral and lying do you think doesn’t apply to both Trump and BJ?
They both apply, it is the level. Boris just wouldn't do or say some of the things Trump does. Doesn't justify Boris, but need to keep it in perspective.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
The history of how many, many Asians were forced out of Africa, after various countries gained independence is neglected. It wasn't just the lunatic cannibal chap who did this.
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
I think it's sensible not to have too artificial a dividing line between categories. People can exist in a range of states from totally secure to being actively hunted, and can have different tolerances for the shades of grey between these extremes. We've gotten used to thinking in terms of legal binaries - you're either need asylum or you don't - but this is an artefact that doesn't do justice to the circumstances of a lot of people. I'd give Braverman the benefit of the doubt on this, even if it's not strictly true (and it might be I don't know).
The persecution of the people, ethnically from the Indian sub-continent, in Africa after independence is well documented. It was often (as above) overt and written into laws.
I understand why this is uncomfortable for some people to discuss. It is a Bad Fact.
Gaslighting your way round it is just offensive, though.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
In the Donbass the figure was even higher.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
The history of how many, many Asians were forced out of Africa, after various countries gained independence is neglected. It wasn't just the lunatic cannibal chap who did this.
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
I think it's sensible not to have too artificial a dividing line between categories. People can exist in a range of states from totally secure to being actively hunted, and can have different tolerances for the shades of grey between these extremes. We've gotten used to thinking in terms of legal binaries - you're either need asylum or you don't - but this is an artefact that doesn't do justice to the circumstances of a lot of people. I'd give Braverman the benefit of the doubt on this, even if it's not strictly true (and it might be I don't know).
But she's part of government and political outlook that wants to enforce dividing lines between refugees and economic migrants (former possibly good, latter immoral), and in her barking performance on QT, between good Ukrainian refugees and kids who may be sleeper agents for the FSB.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
On the subject of Thatcher and enemy casualties. There was a discussion in the cabinet before the order was sent out to sink the Belgrano - it was asked if it was possible to cripple the Belgrano, without sinking the ship. Now, you may say that this was suggested merely for the lower key optics of a crippled ship vs a sunk one.....
It is worth noting that the order was to sink the Belgrano only, and not sink the escorts. The Conqueror could easily have sunk the lot. If it had done so, there would probably, given the sea state, been no survivors from all three ships.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
Never wise with any industry including renewables & energy storage but our politicians and civil servants had no plan B and look as thought they are desperately trying to concoct one for better energy security during the transition to "zero carbon". We actually need a flexible set of plans with decision gateways and a lot more redundancy even if it costs.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
Sounds great.
I would want a hard cost on the first reactor, actually installed and running, before saying it is anything other than an idea that "sounds great".
Fortunately, one of the advantages of this is that the first reactor is a lot smaller and cheaper than punting a zillion on the next Sizewell.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
The word “evil” should be used very sparingly, especially in politics - which is a cruel, messy business, where people have to make decisions, knowing they will cause human suffering
Nonetheless there are politicians who go way beyond tragically cruel necessity, into sadistic heartlessness, and they are evil
From the last hundred years I would cite Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot as absolute pure evil
In the second rank of evil you have awful tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, etc. I’d put Putin in this 2nd rank. Of evil
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all ends. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Dropped by to read the BTL comments which are usually enlightening. Today it is filled with offensive bile.
Will drop back later but regular and frequent commenters might reflect on the impact the tone of their comments has on the choices of how the many lurkers here spend their time. The gardening suddenly seems more enticing.
Yes I agree. It comes to something when it is left to me to raise the tone of the site
But that’s what I’m trying to do. Too much pointless nastiness and Scottish Nationalism is not an attractive spectacle.
It’s a bright, sunny if chilly spring morning. Play nicer, everyone
Dropped by to read the BTL comments which are usually enlightening. Today it is filled with offensive bile.
Will drop back later but regular and frequent commenters might reflect on the impact the tone of their comments has on the choices of how the many lurkers here spend their time. The gardening suddenly seems more enticing.
Yes I agree. It comes to something when it is left to me to raise the tone of the site
But that’s what I’m trying to do. Too much pointless nastiness and Scottish Nationalism is not an attractive spectacle.
It’s a bright, sunny if chilly spring morning. Play nicer, everyone
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
Here's the problem though: Net Zero even if a success, decades down the line, doesn't make anything "better" it just stops things getting worse. It's sacrifice for a very long term payoff of neutrality at best.
It's not hard to see how energy security and the cost of living will trump it. For it to get real traction it has to be make life cleaner, nicer, better, cheaper, more fun.. all the positive things the green movement hate.
Have you looked at the price of gas recently ? Renewables are already significantly cheaper to generate (and in some places massively so). Net zero means creating a continent scale grid to take advantage of that, and sufficient storage to cover the remaining intermittency.
If you’re planning for both energy security and economic efficiency, it makes a great deal of sense.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
We already are.
But for some whatever we do is never enough.
At the moment (I'm sure Mr Smithson Jr will correct me if I'm wrong) only about 15-18% of our power is from electricity. About 50% is from oil one way or another (mostly in transport) and the rest in gas for heating.
So renewables have to not only replace all of our coal powered electricity - and we're getting there - but replace that too. And as electricity is somewhat less efficient for many reasons than oil or gas burned directly, we're looking at an eight or nine fold increase in electrical power generating capacity just to stand still. Making no allowance for population growth.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The Russians say that the Ukrainians are shelling their own citizens.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Yes, but one thing I am always conscious of is just because truth lies in the middle does not mean it lies equidistant between two claimed positions. Positions are not equally wrong, even if neither is completely correct. Truth can still lie much closer to one than the other and so we should never fall into a trap of assuming the broad truth is unknowable because it is 'in the middle'.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
We already are.
But for some whatever we do is never enough.
At the moment (I'm sure Mr Smithson Jr will correct me if I'm wrong) only about 15-18% of our power is from electricity. About 50% is from oil one way or another (mostly in transport) and the rest in gas for heating.
So renewables have to not only replace all of our coal powered electricity - and we're getting there - but replace that too. And as electricity is somewhat less efficient for many reasons than oil or gas burned directly, we're looking at an eight or nine fold increase in electrical power generating capacity just to stand still. Making no allowance for population growth.
It will be a surprise if the chancellor does nothing for hard-pressed families, but the indications are that he plans to do the least that he thinks he can get away with politically. One of his parliamentary supporters tells me that Mr Sunak wants to “hang tough” because he thinks that many of the measures being pressed on him will themselves turn out to be inflationary. “He’s desperately hoping that something will turn up,” remarks one former Tory cabinet minister. The chancellor wants to delay confronting his toughest choices until the autumn budget, in the hope that by then things might look clearer and better.
A reluctance to respond will be contrasted with the speed and agility with which he moved to limit the damage of the pandemic. His programme had its flaws, but for a lot of the public he was the chancellor who splashed the cash to save their livelihoods. His approval ratings sparkled so brightly that he became the most liked politician in the country – and by a handsome margin.
The pandemic made his reputation. Misjudging the cost of living crisis will break it. Charm isn’t going to get him through this. However politely he says it, there will be nothing popular about telling suffering Britons to “fuck off”.
The history of how many, many Asians were forced out of Africa, after various countries gained independence is neglected. It wasn't just the lunatic cannibal chap who did this.
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
I think it's sensible not to have too artificial a dividing line between categories. People can exist in a range of states from totally secure to being actively hunted, and can have different tolerances for the shades of grey between these extremes. We've gotten used to thinking in terms of legal binaries - you're either need asylum or you don't - but this is an artefact that doesn't do justice to the circumstances of a lot of people. I'd give Braverman the benefit of the doubt on this, even if it's not strictly true (and it might be I don't know).
But she's part of government and political outlook that wants to enforce dividing lines between refugees and economic migrants (former possibly good, latter immoral), and in her barking performance on QT, between good Ukrainian refugees and kids who may be sleeper agents for the FSB.
He abilities as a minister are a separate question and she has amply demonstrated that she is woefully short on ability and all too rich in the kind of idiotic stridency that only the truly thick can muster. But I believe in giving her the benefit of doubt when it comes to her expressing her family's feelings on why they moved here, EVEN IF what she said wasn't strictly true. And I don't even know that it is false, anyway. I'm arguing for more compassion for people's experiences, not for her to be in a job that she clearly cannot do well.
I'd give Braverman the benefit of the doubt on her perception of one of her parents being a refugee up to the point of it becoming obvious that it hasn't informed by an iota her view of people who occupy that grey area between refugee and economic migrant today. On Thursday it became clear that her compassion for Ukranian refugees was what she perceived to to be the politically correct position while her later ranting on about it being very difficult to get rid of people once they’re in the country, who knows what reprehensible things they might do if we don’t do proper checks etc was the true Suella.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
You cannot get to net zero without a long transition and this war has turned the previous assumptions upside down
We have oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and the demand to free ourselves from importing Russian oil and gas, and from elsewhere, will become the over riding argument in the next few months and at present labour are on the wrong side of the argument
These discussions are going on across Europe right now as their use, especially Germany, of Russian oil and gas is providing Putin with all he needs to carry on his murderous military campaigns
Indeed I believe Germany are to reinstate coal fired power stations
I understand a new energy policy is to be announced by HMG this week that no doubt will annoy the greens but receive popular support
I would question the value of an energy policy whose aim is to annoy the greens. But that's a perennial problem with this government. Has it come up with any policy yet that is worth the paper it's written on?
This week HMG announces the energy policy going forward and this will be very popular as we become self sufficient in oil and gas
I am intrigued by your demand for the dash for North Sea gas Have you got Schlumberger shares? Perhaps you need to declare your interest.
Dropped by to read the BTL comments which are usually enlightening. Today it is filled with offensive bile.
Will drop back later but regular and frequent commenters might reflect on the impact the tone of their comments has on the choices of how the many lurkers here spend their time. The gardening suddenly seems more enticing.
Yes I agree. It comes to something when it is left to me to raise the tone of the site
But that’s what I’m trying to do. Too much pointless nastiness and Scottish Nationalism is not an attractive spectacle.
It’s a bright, sunny if chilly spring morning. Play nicer, everyone
Dropped by to read the BTL comments which are usually enlightening. Today it is filled with offensive bile.
Will drop back later but regular and frequent commenters might reflect on the impact the tone of their comments has on the choices of how the many lurkers here spend their time. The gardening suddenly seems more enticing.
Yes I agree. It comes to something when it is left to me to raise the tone of the site
But that’s what I’m trying to do. Too much pointless nastiness and Scottish Nationalism is not an attractive spectacle.
It’s a bright, sunny if chilly spring morning. Play nicer, everyone
You caught knapping again
Just to be clear Leon and not intended for your goodself, if arseholes keep away from me they will not need to worry about having their sensitivities upset when they receive replies in tune with their posting. They should stick to speaking to their likeminded boring selves. Fools, arses and comic singers can be sure they will be treated accordingly.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
magically the Scottish oil and gas that had ran out and was worthless has suddenly reappeared and london now need to pillage Scotland yet again whilst sneering as ever no doubt.
We could do the whole Matrix thing and power the whole nation off actual scotsmen.
Or, we already do. Have you ever had a dream, malcolm, that you seemed so sure it was real? But if you were unable to wake up from that dream, how would you tell the difference between the dream world & the real world?
Fuck that plot point annoys me with the stupidity of the physics. Ruins the film when they could so easily have pinched an idea from Hyperion, and had the machines cocooning the humans so as to use their brains as extra computing power.
Well most of it is run off Scottish windpower, Scottish oil and gas so be little different to what it is now. These fcukwits have ranted for years about how there was no oil left and as if by magic it all appears again, definitely a fantasy world for sure.
You kindly provide much of the Scottish wind power, for which we are thankful.
I have never said there was none left, but it's profitability did dive because Putin and the Saudis got in a price battle (forgive me if I am wrong) and drove the price down (blissful days). It is now likely to be more profitable again - good times for Aberdeen.
Lucky you were not included , I was meaning Tories, little Englanders and their ilk. They are strangely silent on the matter now except the fact they want to rape and pillage us yet again to fund their overspending. Aberdeen will see little, it will once more all head to London to be splaffed up a wall.
Seriously - “rape and pillage”? Lay off the vodka so early and take a walk
Fuck off you septic nasty little arsehole of a creep. @Razedabode
Guys I know we are tolerant of @malcolmg dyspeptic ramblings.
But this sort of comment doesn’t add anything to the site.
Bit like your comments , get a life. Jessie boy running to teacher, just imagine you at school snitching on everyone. Have you ever added anything of value to the site
Jessie boy is not the preferred nomenclature in the 21st century Malcolm. Try keeping slurs out of your insults.
I cannot help being a 20th century person, and in my day it was not a slur, merely that you were wimpy. All in the mind of the beholder it seems as having looked at 21st century usage I see it is all woke now and has been twisted to be something else. I come from a much more oinnocent age.
Ah yes, surprised you didn't go with 'should have a thicker skin'.
You should consider "getting with" the current millennium.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
We already are.
But for some whatever we do is never enough.
At the moment (I'm sure Mr Smithson Jr will correct me if I'm wrong) only about 15-18% of our power is from electricity. About 50% is from oil one way or another (mostly in transport) and the rest in gas for heating.
So renewables have to not only replace all of our coal powered electricity - and we're getting there - but replace that too. And as electricity is somewhat less efficient for many reasons than oil or gas burned directly, we're looking at an eight or nine fold increase in electrical power generating capacity just to stand still. Making no allowance for population growth.
So that's why it's difficult for it to be enough.
We have come a long way in a short period of time. It is just glib statements like the one I replied to seem to be coming from the POV this investment isn’t happening. It is.
Wait until most of the cars on the road are powered by electricity. That demand needs to be filled too. Especially in the winter when batteries are less efficient. We are already seeing car batteries charges lasting less in the colder months.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
The problem for the Tories is that they can't propose policies on anything or even make a basic argument without being found to be lying.
We all have different opinions of this policy or that politician. But the base assumption was always that they wouldn't always tell egregious lies and wouldn't be putting their own self-interests above the country.
That assumption simply doesn't hold with this government. They are liars - pretty much all of them. They are lining the pockets of their party and their donors. They think the rule of law does not apply.
So how do they play the "trust us to deliver" card at the next election. Even their own hardcore Boris and Brexit vote can see they've been taken for mugs.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The Russians say that the Ukrainians are shelling their own citizens.
So you think there's some truth in that?
I don't believe the Russian propaganda. But what I find plausible are reports from Mariupol that the Azov brigade have been preventing civilians from leaving the city, and attempting to use them as human sheilds. With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
"I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed."
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
You cannot get to net zero without a long transition and this war has turned the previous assumptions upside down
We have oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and the demand to free ourselves from importing Russian oil and gas, and from elsewhere, will become the over riding argument in the next few months and at present labour are on the wrong side of the argument
These discussions are going on across Europe right now as their use, especially Germany, of Russian oil and gas is providing Putin with all he needs to carry on his murderous military campaigns
Indeed I believe Germany are to reinstate coal fired power stations
I understand a new energy policy is to be announced by HMG this week that no doubt will annoy the greens but receive popular support
I would question the value of an energy policy whose aim is to annoy the greens. But that's a perennial problem with this government. Has it come up with any policy yet that is worth the paper it's written on?
This week HMG announces the energy policy going forward and this will be very popular as we become self sufficient in oil and gas
I am intrigued by your demand for the dash for North Sea gas Have you got Schlumberger shares? Perhaps you need to declare your interest.
I find Schlumberger quite funny. A long while ago, I was involved in a minor way with them over smartcards. Therefore when I run past the Schlumberger campus in Cambridge I always think 'ah! They do smartcards!'. It's only since the XR nutjobs got involved that I realised that they're a) not in the smartcard business any more, and b) were a massive oil 'n gas company.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
"I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed."
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
Looking at the horrific images coming out of Mariupol, and elsewhere, I’m guessing that many thousands of Ukrainians have already died
You don’t get 6 MILLION refugees, internal and external, unless something horrendous is happening on the ground
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
"I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed."
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
And so your argument collapses. We were trying to defeat Hitler, and Nazi Germany
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
"I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed."
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
Looking at the horrific images coming out of Mariupol, and elsewhere, I’m guessing that many thousands of Ukrainians have already died
You don’t get 6 MILLION refugees, internal and external, unless something truly appalling is happening
Of course something truly appalling is happening, it's an invasion. Nobody said it wasn't appalling.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
Were there demands for a referendum?
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
Comparing Putin's current slaughter of Ukrainians to those fighting Hitler in WW2 is considerably stupider than Boris's really stupid comparison of Ukrainian defence and Brexit.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
And so your argument collapses. We were trying to defeat Hitler, and Nazi Germany
No it doesn't, who we were trying to defeat has nothing to do with whether it's OK to scatter bombs on women and children. It's arguable that we'd have defeated them quicker by dropping the bombs more strategically.
And by the way, I am proud over all of Britain's conduct and victory in World War 2.
It will be a surprise if the chancellor does nothing for hard-pressed families, but the indications are that he plans to do the least that he thinks he can get away with politically. One of his parliamentary supporters tells me that Mr Sunak wants to “hang tough” because he thinks that many of the measures being pressed on him will themselves turn out to be inflationary. “He’s desperately hoping that something will turn up,” remarks one former Tory cabinet minister. The chancellor wants to delay confronting his toughest choices until the autumn budget, in the hope that by then things might look clearer and better.
A reluctance to respond will be contrasted with the speed and agility with which he moved to limit the damage of the pandemic. His programme had its flaws, but for a lot of the public he was the chancellor who splashed the cash to save their livelihoods. His approval ratings sparkled so brightly that he became the most liked politician in the country – and by a handsome margin.
The pandemic made his reputation. Misjudging the cost of living crisis will break it. Charm isn’t going to get him through this. However politely he says it, there will be nothing popular about telling suffering Britons to “fuck off”.
A cost of living crisis is nature's way of telling a country that its supply and demand have got out of synch. We want a lifestyle that our collective efforts don't really support. And deep down, we sort of know that's the case, don't we?
Not fun for the poor sod who ends up holding the parcel when the music stops, though.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
You cannot get to net zero without a long transition and this war has turned the previous assumptions upside down
We have oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and the demand to free ourselves from importing Russian oil and gas, and from elsewhere, will become the over riding argument in the next few months and at present labour are on the wrong side of the argument
These discussions are going on across Europe right now as their use, especially Germany, of Russian oil and gas is providing Putin with all he needs to carry on his murderous military campaigns
Indeed I believe Germany are to reinstate coal fired power stations
I understand a new energy policy is to be announced by HMG this week that no doubt will annoy the greens but receive popular support
I would question the value of an energy policy whose aim is to annoy the greens. But that's a perennial problem with this government. Has it come up with any policy yet that is worth the paper it's written on?
This week HMG announces the energy policy going forward and this will be very popular as we become self sufficient in oil and gas
I am intrigued by your demand for the dash for North Sea gas Have you got Schlumberger shares? Perhaps you need to declare your interest.
Your comment is perhaps unintentionally illustrative. What happens in the North Sea will make not one iota of difference to the profitability of Schlumberger or any other oil field service company. In the international scheme of things the North Sea, whilst hugely important to domestic energy security, is utterly insignificant. Indeed that is why all these calls to shut down North Sea production are so deeply stupid. It won't make a blind bit of difference to how much oil and gas we use and will just mean we get it from alternative less savoury places where Schlumberger make bigger profits because environmental, safety and labour laws are less stringent.
“Vladimir Putin has 'finally agreed 'to face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky after more than three weeks of war, it has been reported. The two leaders have let their diplomatic teams conduct peace talks on the neutral ground since shortly after the start of the conflict on February 24, but a BBC correspondent has confirmed the two will meet in person”
It may just be me, but the intensity of fighting does seem to have reduced in recent days. It may just be lack of targets. Or perhaps, informally, not so much a ceasefire as "if you don't move, we won't kill you while talks go on"? We can hope.
But we also have to hope for Putin not to make stupid demands of Ukraine. Less optimism there.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
Were there demands for a referendum?
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
I have no idea whether "Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds."
I have no idea what the "people in Crimea feel about its now". Nor have you.
If only we could think of some independent way to test what members of an electorate feel on an important public question such as sovereignty ?
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
He could have settled for those at the end of the first week. The longer it goes on, the less liekly it is fro sanctions to be lifted even *if* he gets 2,3 and 4. And everyone is well aware that he might try to 'break off another piece'.
A humble man goes jogging Keeping fit And why does he do this? Because this is no ordinary man. This is Boris Johnson: plain, no frills, unassuming. But he knows he is leader of the free world & must keep in top condition for all of us. We are blessed.👍🇬🇧
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
Comparing Putin's current slaughter of Ukrainians to those fighting Hitler in WW2 is considerably stupider than Boris's really stupid comparison of Ukrainian defence and Brexit.
So if the cause is just, it's OK to slaughter the innocents?
All I am saying is that I believe that there is some evidence to show that attempts were made by the invaders to minimise civilian casualties. With the invasion stalling, and techniques changing, there has been an enormous human cost, and Putin bears the responsibility for that. However, let's not attribute that to some sort of sadism, when callous determination to achieve military goals is a more likely explanation.
"With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital."
What was interesting was that while Labrov, the foreign minister was claiming that the hospital was not a maternity hospital at all, but housed only the military, the Russian Ambassador to the UN was admitting it was a maternity hospital. However, the shell/bomb had missed it, causing only a crater in front. In the picture he showed, all the windows had been blown in yet he denied any casualties. Had you been in any of the wards, imagine what broken glass acting as shrapnel would have done to any patient?
One or both must be lying, and lying poorly. It's as if only useful idiots were being targetted. When you shoot yourself in the foot like that, you don't need Ukranian propaganda.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
"I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed."
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
Looking at the horrific images coming out of Mariupol, and elsewhere, I’m guessing that many thousands of Ukrainians have already died
You don’t get 6 MILLION refugees, internal and external, unless something horrendous is happening on the ground
There are two methods of invasion:
1. Blitzkrieg, break the spirit of the people, install a puppet government. That was Plan A in Ukraine - epic fail.
2. Long range demolition of cities. Bomb, raze, move forward half a mile, repeat ad nauseum. The Chechnya way. Working in the south, not so much on the north.
2 inevitably means that the destruction of the local population is an aim in itself, as a way to drive capitulation for remaining cities. Not much of an advance on the method of Genghis Khan, except for the weaponry.
The problem for the Tories is that they can't propose policies on anything or even make a basic argument without being found to be lying.
We all have different opinions of this policy or that politician. But the base assumption was always that they wouldn't always tell egregious lies and wouldn't be putting their own self-interests above the country.
That assumption simply doesn't hold with this government. They are liars - pretty much all of them. They are lining the pockets of their party and their donors. They think the rule of law does not apply.
So how do they play the "trust us to deliver" card at the next election. Even their own hardcore Boris and Brexit vote can see they've been taken for mugs.
But she's not lying. East African Asians were widely persecuted.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
Were there demands for a referendum?
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
I have no idea whether "Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds."
I have no idea what the "people in Crimea feel about its now". Nor have you.
If only we could think of some independent way to test what members of an electorate feel on an important public question such as sovereignty ?
Well, yes, if only we could. It's made a little more difficult in this case by the total impracticality of any democratic process while it's under the control of the FSB. If you have any suggestions on changing that, we'd all be glad to know what they are.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
Were there demands for a referendum?
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
I have no idea whether "Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds."
I have no idea what the "people in Crimea feel about its now". Nor have you.
If only we could think of some independent way to test what members of an electorate feel on an important public question such as sovereignty ?
You mean like a presidential election? Where pro-Russian candidates once had a chance of winning and have, since 2014, got nowhere in Ukraine.
A humble man goes jogging Keeping fit And why does he do this? Because this is no ordinary man. This is Boris Johnson: plain, no frills, unassuming. But he knows he is leader of the free world & must keep in top condition for all of us. We are blessed.👍🇬🇧
tbf, I’m several stone lighter (he does look like an walrus in a hurry), but my running form isn’t vastly better.
A local gym offers running courses - According to the chap running them, he can massively improve most peoples speed *and* reduce their probability of injuring themselves.
Given some of the strange flopping about I see on the pavements, I think he is right.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
Comparing Putin's current slaughter of Ukrainians to those fighting Hitler in WW2 is considerably stupider than Boris's really stupid comparison of Ukrainian defence and Brexit.
So if the cause is just, it's OK to slaughter the innocents?
All I am saying is that I believe that there is some evidence to show that attempts were made by the invaders to minimise civilian casualties. With the invasion stalling, and techniques changing, there has been an enormous human cost, and Putin bears the responsibility for that. However, let's not attribute that to some sort of sadism, when callous determination to achieve military goals is a more likely explanation.
"With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital."
What was interesting was that while Labrov, the foreign minister was claiming that the hospital was not a maternity hospital at all, but housed only the military, the Russian Ambassador to the UN was admitting it was a maternity hospital. However, the shell/bomb had missed it, causing only a crater in front. In the picture he showed, all the windows had been blown in yet he denied any casualties. Had you been in any of the wards, imagine what broken glass acting as shrapnel would have done to any patient?
One or both must be lying, and lying poorly. It's as if only useful idiots were being targetted. When you shoot yourself in the foot like that, you don't need Ukranian propaganda.
And then thirdly, the Russian military denied it was even them who dropped the bomb. I completely agree, Russian propaganda isn't to be trusted (obviously) and is a total mess. However, it is a verified fact that casualty numbers from the attack are extremely low, not consistent in my opinion with it being an active maternity hospital.
They were awfully quick to rule out terror….which makes me wonder if there’s something about the perpetrators they haven’t told us yet - all we know is they’re local residents in their thirties.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
I find the lack of UK focus on tidal power a deeply tragic reflection on our political classes and interest groups.
All the benefits of wind/solar but super super predictable, basically free power.
Recently went to a talk by these people https://www.ourtide.org/ who are trying to just raise awareness of the pro/cons of each option.
If we committed to doing tidal then ramping up north sea gas/oil in the short term would make sense (at least then we would have a plan) instead we go for the harder nuclear options.
MrB
It's not free - to say so harms the case for it.
It has a price in £ per Mw of capacity.
Less than nuclear. probably bit more than gas. It would be interesting to see the price vs wind taking into account the requirement for excess capacity for wind.
True, free is the wrong term
I just think it is quite different other renewables in how predictable it is. It would almost certainly be cheaper than nuclear per Mw but it doesn't come with a different set downsides.
"With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital."
What was interesting was that while Labrov, the foreign minister was claiming that the hospital was not a maternity hospital at all, but housed only the military, the Russian Ambassador to the UN was admitting it was a maternity hospital. However, the shell/bomb had missed it, causing only a crater in front. In the picture he showed, all the windows had been blown in yet he denied any casualties. Had you been in any of the wards, imagine what broken glass acting as shrapnel would have done to any patient?
One or both must be lying, and lying poorly. It's as if only useful idiots were being targetted. When you shoot yourself in the foot like that, you don't need Ukranian propaganda.
Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital.....
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
"good" is a just a glib label too then. As is "degrees", "natural", "wrath", and "we". Let's just not use any words at all because they oversimplify the rich spectral is-ness of being.
Or do we only pick on the word "evil"? Because... reasons?
I suppose because assigning someone as 'evil' implies a sort of power, or substance, or energy. I don't believe it has those attributes. Like darkness is just the absence of light, evil acts are just a failure to be our true selves.
If someone has the ability to slaughter innocents while even some onlookers say "the truth is in the middle", then that someone has an awesome amount of evil power.
The UK had a deliberate policy of civilian bombing in world war 2 - did we have awesome evil power?
Comparing Putin's current slaughter of Ukrainians to those fighting Hitler in WW2 is considerably stupider than Boris's really stupid comparison of Ukrainian defence and Brexit.
So if the cause is just, it's OK to slaughter the innocents?
All I am saying is that I believe that there is some evidence to show that attempts were made by the invaders to minimise civilian casualties. With the invasion stalling, and techniques changing, there has been an enormous human cost, and Putin bears the responsibility for that. However, let's not attribute that to some sort of sadism, when callous determination to achieve military goals is a more likely explanation.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
If these mini-nukes turn out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the RN gets charged, somebody might just say "Hang on a minute...."
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
Why were the boundaries of Crimea and Donbas wrong?
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
Thank you for reminding me of this, yet again.
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all needs. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
No, it's not unreasonable to revisit things.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
Crimea voted 54 % to leave the USSR and join an independent Ukraine in 1991. It takes a 2 per cent swing to change the result.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
Were there demands for a referendum?
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
I have no idea whether "Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds."
I have no idea what the "people in Crimea feel about its now". Nor have you.
If only we could think of some independent way to test what members of an electorate feel on an important public question such as sovereignty ?
You mean like a presidential election? Where pro-Russian candidates once had a chance of winning and have, since 2014, got nowhere in Ukraine.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
I find the lack of UK focus on tidal power a deeply tragic reflection on our political classes and interest groups.
All the benefits of wind/solar but super super predictable, basically free power.
Recently went to a talk by these people https://www.ourtide.org/ who are trying to just raise awareness of the pro/cons of each option.
If we committed to doing tidal then ramping up north sea gas/oil in the short term would make sense (at least then we would have a plan) instead we go for the harder nuclear options.
MrB
Any ideas on how we make this happen? I can write letters, press releases, social media posts etc. I'm all in on this, let's just do it now.
To be honest I'm not really sure. The main parties don't seem to be too bothered, but I might be wrong on this.
Feels like the sort of thing a pension fund might want to invest in but they would need the strike price of the power to be binding/guaranteed (like nuclear)
Certainly from the talk I was at they tech seems to be where wind was 10-15 years ago, costs are coming down. Other parts of the world seem to just be able to get on with it.
The history of how many, many Asians were forced out of Africa, after various countries gained independence is neglected. It wasn't just the lunatic cannibal chap who did this.
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
Fair comment - but those circumstances will not be dissimilar to many of today’s ‘economic migrants’.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
I think Zelensky is untouchable now - he has such cult status that if killed, it would have the emotional impact of making Western audiences very pro-war. I also think he's better from the Russian perspective to a lot of the alternatives.
The problem for the Tories is that they can't propose policies on anything or even make a basic argument without being found to be lying.
We all have different opinions of this policy or that politician. But the base assumption was always that they wouldn't always tell egregious lies and wouldn't be putting their own self-interests above the country.
That assumption simply doesn't hold with this government. They are liars - pretty much all of them. They are lining the pockets of their party and their donors. They think the rule of law does not apply.
So how do they play the "trust us to deliver" card at the next election. Even their own hardcore Boris and Brexit vote can see they've been taken for mugs.
Do we really care if Bozza or Cruella are lying?
Johnson's speech in Blackpool yesterday was full of proclamations that he was the one true patriot statesman in the fight against Putin. His implication was if you weren't on Team Boris, you would invariably be a pro-Putin quisling traitor ,I am guessing that refers to, i.e. Starmer, Davey etc. etc. A patent falsehood.
And Braverman, she defended her lie with such emotion and conviction that one felt if she was armed, Streeting would now be a late and former MP. It was as though she believed her own BS.
It was said in Trump's USA we were in a post-truth state. We may already be at that point here. It is not that there is an economy with the actualitaire, these people are projecting absolute fiction as reality, and with a straight face.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
This is all your anti-Western fever dream. 1 is not possible even if they kill Levensky. Russia isn't even getting new mayors accepted at the local level. They have no chance at a national one. 2 will only be achieved on the basis of Ukraine getting clear defense guarantees from the West that replicate the same benefits. 3 may be achievable but only because the Donbass is much lower importance than Ukraine than other issues. 4 is completely ridiculous. Even if they occupy a land bridge, the Ukrainians living there hate them and Russia will slowly bleed out. Plus, they are not even going to be able to reach Odessa before the war becomes a stalemate after a couple of routs already.
The much more realistic outcome of this is that the war becomes a stalemate in the next couple of weeks, Russia has unrealistic demands like yours and underestimates Ukrainian resolve, we have a long war with lots of deaths, the Russian economy defaults and enters a crisis, and the Russian people gradually get sick of their young men being killed for a war no-one wanted. At some point a couple years from now, Russia accepts defeat, gets minimal concessions and despite Putin's best efforts to say the 'special operation' achieved its minimum aims, he is humiliated.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
If these mini-nukes turn out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the RN gets charged, somebody might just say "Hang on a minute...."
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
Doesn't everything nuclear always cost shitloads more and take shitloads longer than everyone breezily asserts at the start? These RR mini nukes will be no different.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
If these mini-nukes turn out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the RN gets charged, somebody might just say "Hang on a minute...."
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
I don't know where you got the idea that they will be an "order of magnitude cheaper" than the RN pays for a reactor - I haven't seen a finalised price.
Building things to military specifications is generally more expensive though - see military vs civilian costs for ship building. There are good reasons for this.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
You cannot get to net zero without a long transition and this war has turned the previous assumptions upside down
We have oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and the demand to free ourselves from importing Russian oil and gas, and from elsewhere, will become the over riding argument in the next few months and at present labour are on the wrong side of the argument
These discussions are going on across Europe right now as their use, especially Germany, of Russian oil and gas is providing Putin with all he needs to carry on his murderous military campaigns
Indeed I believe Germany are to reinstate coal fired power stations
I understand a new energy policy is to be announced by HMG this week that no doubt will annoy the greens but receive popular support
I would question the value of an energy policy whose aim is to annoy the greens. But that's a perennial problem with this government. Has it come up with any policy yet that is worth the paper it's written on?
This week HMG announces the energy policy going forward and this will be very popular as we become self sufficient in oil and gas
I am intrigued by your demand for the dash for North Sea gas Have you got Schlumberger shares? Perhaps you need to declare your interest.
Your comment is perhaps unintentionally illustrative. What happens in the North Sea will make not one iota of difference to the profitability of Schlumberger or any other oil field service company. In the international scheme of things the North Sea, whilst hugely important to domestic energy security, is utterly insignificant. Indeed that is why all these calls to shut down North Sea production are so deeply stupid. It won't make a blind bit of difference to how much oil and gas we use and will just mean we get it from alternative less savoury places where Schlumberger make bigger profits because environmental, safety and labour laws are less stringent.
Indeed. My commentary is "never .. intentionally illustrative".
"Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."
So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.
"Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."
So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.
More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.
Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
Comments
But what happened on January 6 takes Trump to a vastly different level of political venality, to my mind. And Boris has not attempted anything like that
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Kenya#Independence
"Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government, led by Jomo Kenyatta. Despite the entrepreneurial success of the community, in 1970, 70% of the economically active Asian population consisted of wage and salary earners, and 30% worked for the civil service. A policy of Africanisation meant many were sacked in favour of black Africans.[25] The Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required Asians to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[26] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passports and settle in the United Kingdom. "
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
I understand why this is uncomfortable for some people to discuss. It is a Bad Fact.
Gaslighting your way round it is just offensive, though.
Just to remind you, in 1991 54% of Crimeans voted in a referendum to break away from the USSR and stay with Ukraine as it became an independent state.
In the Donbass the figure was even higher.
I know there are opinion polls that say different now but they are conducted in a shall we say, less than free and fair manner.
It is worth noting that the order was to sink the Belgrano only, and not sink the escorts. The Conqueror could easily have sunk the lot. If it had done so, there would probably, given the sea state, been no survivors from all three ships.
Fortunately, one of the advantages of this is that the first reactor is a lot smaller and cheaper than punting a zillion on the next Sizewell.
Nonetheless there are politicians who go way beyond tragically cruel necessity, into sadistic heartlessness, and they are evil
From the last hundred years I would cite Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot as absolute pure evil
In the second rank of evil you have awful tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, etc. I’d put Putin in this 2nd rank. Of evil
It is not unreasonable to revisit the matter since 1991.
John Major was PM then, but he is not PM now. Because the matter is regularly revisited in elections.
All plebiscites are held under difficult conditions.
We will have to wait and see how it all ends. But, I expect Ukraine will now lose more territory than just Donbas/Crimea.
It is unreasonable to illegally invade a country, stage fixed elections, and then complain when people point out that they may actually not be representative, which is what Russia has done in Crimea and the Donbass. There is very little independent evidence to suggest a significant, independent separatist movement existed in Crimea, which had far more freedom and autonomy in Ukraine with its own Parliament and President than it has within Russia. The only agitation to the contrary in Crimea came from the Russian Navy, who are hardly impartial observers! In the Donbass, even less. Only a fraction of it is controlled by Russia and even there their popularity is at best shaky.
So I will keep reminding you of it, because if you say 'the boundaries were wrong' which goes against the limited evidence we have, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that statement.
But for some whatever we do is never enough.
Renewables are already significantly cheaper to generate (and in some places massively so).
Net zero means creating a continent scale grid to take advantage of that, and sufficient storage to cover the remaining intermittency.
If you’re planning for both energy security and economic efficiency, it makes a great deal of sense.
So renewables have to not only replace all of our coal powered electricity - and we're getting there - but replace that too. And as electricity is somewhat less efficient for many reasons than oil or gas burned directly, we're looking at an eight or nine fold increase in electrical power generating capacity just to stand still. Making no allowance for population growth.
So that's why it's difficult for it to be enough.
So you think there's some truth in that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_coal-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom
It will be a surprise if the chancellor does nothing for hard-pressed families, but the indications are that he plans to do the least that he thinks he can get away with politically. One of his parliamentary supporters tells me that Mr Sunak wants to “hang tough” because he thinks that many of the measures being pressed on him will themselves turn out to be inflationary. “He’s desperately hoping that something will turn up,” remarks one former Tory cabinet minister. The chancellor wants to delay confronting his toughest choices until the autumn budget, in the hope that by then things might look clearer and better.
A reluctance to respond will be contrasted with the speed and agility with which he moved to limit the damage of the pandemic. His programme had its flaws, but for a lot of the public he was the chancellor who splashed the cash to save their livelihoods. His approval ratings sparkled so brightly that he became the most liked politician in the country – and by a handsome margin.
The pandemic made his reputation. Misjudging the cost of living crisis will break it. Charm isn’t going to get him through this. However politely he says it, there will be nothing popular about telling suffering Britons to “fuck off”.
Fools, arses and comic singers can be sure they will be treated accordingly.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/car-crashes-into-carnival-in-belgium-strepy-bracquegnies
I begin to suspect terror, but we shall see
Wait until most of the cars on the road are powered by electricity. That demand needs to be filled too. Especially in the winter when batteries are less efficient. We are already seeing car batteries charges lasting less in the colder months.
It is perfectly reasonable for regions with separatist/secessionist ambitions -- be they Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya, Crimea -- to have the question revisited every 10 or so years.
The plebiscite could and should have been carried out before Russia invaded.
The Crimean Parliament before invasion had 80 out of 100 seats for Yanukovych.
That is evidence of at least very substantial support for the Russian-backed Yanukovych.
Your arguments seems to be Ukraine could easily have won the plebiscites -- in which case ... err ... it would have been sensible to hold them.
We all have different opinions of this policy or that politician. But the base assumption was always that they wouldn't always tell egregious lies and wouldn't be putting their own self-interests above the country.
That assumption simply doesn't hold with this government. They are liars - pretty much all of them. They are lining the pockets of their party and their donors. They think the rule of law does not apply.
So how do they play the "trust us to deliver" card at the next election. Even their own hardcore Boris and Brexit vote can see they've been taken for mugs.
Whilst I believe that the number of citizens killed by high explosive missiles and shells being fired into cities of hundreds of thousands of people will result in a truly appalling death toll when the truth is known. Morale of the Ukrainians says you don't admit to how many are dying; shame of the Russians means you don't acknowledge what carnage your form of war causes.
The Russian invasion of Chechnya killed between 80,000-100,000 Chechens, mostly non-combatants. "less extreme"? Bollocks is it.
You don’t get 6 MILLION refugees, internal and external, unless something horrendous is happening on the ground
Anyway that was 2014. The big question is how would people in Crimea feel about it now? Pro-Russians areas elsewhere in Ukraine certainly seem to have, er, changed their minds.
And by the way, I am proud over all of Britain's conduct and victory in World War 2.
Not fun for the poor sod who ends up holding the parcel when the music stops, though.
But we also have to hope for Putin not to make stupid demands of Ukraine. Less optimism there.
I have no idea what the "people in Crimea feel about its now". Nor have you.
If only we could think of some independent way to test what members of an electorate feel on an important public question such as sovereignty ?
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus.
2. No NATO for Ukraine.
3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR.
4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney.
2. That's a tick.
3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
All I am saying is that I believe that there is some evidence to show that attempts were made by the invaders to minimise civilian casualties. With the invasion stalling, and techniques changing, there has been an enormous human cost, and Putin bears the responsibility for that. However, let's not attribute that to some sort of sadism, when callous determination to achieve military goals is a more likely explanation.
"With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital."
What was interesting was that while Labrov, the foreign minister was claiming that the hospital was not a maternity hospital at all, but housed only the military, the Russian Ambassador to the UN was admitting it was a maternity hospital. However, the shell/bomb had missed it, causing only a crater in front. In the picture he showed, all the windows had been blown in yet he denied any casualties. Had you been in any of the wards, imagine what broken glass acting as shrapnel would have done to any patient?
One or both must be lying, and lying poorly. It's as if only useful idiots were being targetted. When you shoot yourself in the foot like that, you don't need Ukranian propaganda.
1. Blitzkrieg, break the spirit of the people, install a puppet government. That was Plan A in Ukraine - epic fail.
2. Long range demolition of cities. Bomb, raze, move forward half a mile, repeat ad nauseum. The Chechnya way. Working in the south, not so much on the north.
2 inevitably means that the destruction of the local population is an aim in itself, as a way to drive capitulation for remaining cities. Not much of an advance on the method of Genghis Khan, except for the weaponry.
Given some of the strange flopping about I see on the pavements, I think he is right.
Hitler? Just dogmatically persistent.
I just think it is quite different other renewables in how predictable it is. It would almost certainly be cheaper than nuclear per Mw but it doesn't come with a different set downsides.
Feels ideal to add to the mix.
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
Edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ukrainian_local_elections
Feels like the sort of thing a pension fund might want to invest in but they would need the strike price of the power to be binding/guaranteed (like nuclear)
Certainly from the talk I was at they tech seems to be where wind was 10-15 years ago, costs are coming down. Other parts of the world seem to just be able to get on with it.
MrB
Johnson's speech in Blackpool yesterday was full of proclamations that he was the one true patriot statesman in the fight against Putin. His implication was if you weren't on Team Boris, you would invariably be a pro-Putin quisling traitor ,I am guessing that refers to, i.e. Starmer, Davey etc. etc. A patent falsehood.
And Braverman, she defended her lie with such emotion and conviction that one felt if she was armed, Streeting would now be a late and former MP. It was as though she believed her own BS.
It was said in Trump's USA we were in a post-truth state. We may already be at that point here. It is not that there is an economy with the actualitaire, these people are projecting absolute fiction as reality, and with a straight face.
If activist citizens increase the sanctions to close to a blockade...
The much more realistic outcome of this is that the war becomes a stalemate in the next couple of weeks, Russia has unrealistic demands like yours and underestimates Ukrainian resolve, we have a long war with lots of deaths, the Russian economy defaults and enters a crisis, and the Russian people gradually get sick of their young men being killed for a war no-one wanted. At some point a couple years from now, Russia accepts defeat, gets minimal concessions and despite Putin's best efforts to say the 'special operation' achieved its minimum aims, he is humiliated.
Building things to military specifications is generally more expensive though - see military vs civilian costs for ship building. There are good reasons for this.
NEW THREAD
"Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."
So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.
Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.