Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
Zelensky speech to the Knesset seems to have ruffled a few feathers
To be fair, some Ukranians actively helped the Germans kill Jews, at Babi Yar for example.
The sort of statement which really needs to be correct if you are going to make it at all
"While the witness referred to "[t]he Ukrainians" there has only been one documented Ukrainian speaker at Babi Yar, and that was Second Lieutenant Joseph Muller, an ethnic German from Galicia.[28] Thus, it is more accurate to describe these people as "Ukrainian speakers". A German policeman who guarded Babi Yar testified in 1965 that "the Jews were guarded by Wehrmacht units and by a Hamburg Police Battalion, which, as far as I can remember, carried the number 303." Longerich, Peter, ed. (1989). Die Ermordung der euopäischen Juden: Eine umfassende Dokumentation der Holocaust 1941–1945. Munich and Zurich. p. 123.
cited by wikipedia. seriously, seriously respected historian.
"To be fair" seems an odd way of introducing your claim.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Just accept UK has been involved in Ukraine in it's own right and is recognised by Ukraine itself
Boris speaks to their president virtually daily and Ukraine ambassador has endorsed Boris's commitment today
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
How did the country that received the most generous chunk of Marshall money manage to fcuk up?
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Just accept UK has been involved in Ukraine in it's own right and is recognised by Ukraine itself
Boris speaks to their president virtually daily and Ukraine ambassador has endorsed Boris's commitment today
The striking thing is, as per header, how little traction he is getting from all this.
Of course Ukraine is going to big up the support it's getting from anyone who is supporting it.
It's not just energy cost rocketing. 40% of chippy fish comes from Russia, and consumers are skint.
I’m always surprised so many people go for the fish. When I was younger and poorer I always balked at the cost and got pie & chips or, if desperate, saveloy and chips.
I asked for a saveloy here in Sheffield donkey's years back, as it's common in Coventry but they'd never heard of it. Where are you ?
Well, this was London, but I may be misusing the term. Chip shop long cheap boiled or deep fried sausage. Meat percentage unknown. Different from a “catering sausage” though.
Saveloy is a red spiced sausage.
Ah, then no. Just chip shop sausage.
What’s the difference between a saveloy and a frankfurter?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Just accept UK has been involved in Ukraine in it's own right and is recognised by Ukraine itself
Boris speaks to their president virtually daily and Ukraine ambassador has endorsed Boris's commitment today
The striking thing is, as per header, how little traction he is getting from all this.
Of course Ukraine is going to big up the support it's getting from anyone who is supporting it.
I believe Boris role is widely accepted but the cost of living crisis is a huge issue and how it is mitigated will be key to the poll ratings going forward
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
Does it? Boris was continuing to arm Ukraine and the Germans were very much on the side of Russia.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Michael Kofman @KofmanMichael Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
Just accept UK has been involved in Ukraine in it's own right and is recognised by Ukraine itself
Boris speaks to their president virtually daily and Ukraine ambassador has endorsed Boris's commitment today
The striking thing is, as per header, how little traction he is getting from all this.
Of course Ukraine is going to big up the support it's getting from anyone who is supporting it.
I believe Boris role is widely accepted but the cost of living crisis is a huge issue and how it is mitigated will be key to the poll ratings going forward
He has embarrassed himself and the country with the Brexit claim. I think he is a fat man in a hurry, knowing that the clock is ticking and that his least worst hope of a legacy is to remembered as the Hero of Mariupol.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
Not even in pre Boris governments
This always has been a UK initiave
Though Boris has increased armaments supply since the start of the conflict
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Hold on, what did Iraq do to provoke GW2?
It's a well known fact that Saddam Hussein was looking at George W Bush's pint.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
Crimea must be restored.
Taking Kaliningrad would set up the next war
Point of interest....the official currency in Kaliningrad is the rouble, right?
Re a post below, Mariupol seems to have been the town the Russians have decided to flatten so far, in lieu of any other progress. It doesn't have the apparently more straightforward Russian-speaking population of some of the towns further east. A third Ukrainians, a third Greeks, and a third Russians. A clear war crime.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Sorry my bad! I completely forgot that I myself had posted this a few months ago:
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Hold on, what did Iraq do to provoke GW2?
It's a well known fact that Saddam Hussein was looking at George W Bush's pint.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Sorry my bad! I completely forgot that I myself had posted this a few months ago:
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
A gradually fading anachronism, like 'the Sudan' or 'the Argentine.'
All this stuff about voting intentions really misses the point. Obviously the key question is whether the war in Ukraine will make people more or less likely to be eating Hellmann's mayonnaise.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Zelensky speech to the Knesset seems to have ruffled a few feathers
To be fair, some Ukranians actively helped the Germans kill Jews, at Babi Yar for example.
The sort of statement which really needs to be correct if you are going to make it at all
"While the witness referred to "[t]he Ukrainians" there has only been one documented Ukrainian speaker at Babi Yar, and that was Second Lieutenant Joseph Muller, an ethnic German from Galicia.[28] Thus, it is more accurate to describe these people as "Ukrainian speakers". A German policeman who guarded Babi Yar testified in 1965 that "the Jews were guarded by Wehrmacht units and by a Hamburg Police Battalion, which, as far as I can remember, carried the number 303." Longerich, Peter, ed. (1989). Die Ermordung der euopäischen Juden: Eine umfassende Dokumentation der Holocaust 1941–1945. Munich and Zurich. p. 123.
cited by wikipedia. seriously, seriously respected historian.
"To be fair" seems an odd way of introducing your claim.
This is Yad Vashem on the Ukranian Auxilary Police in the Shoah:
Michael Kofman @KofmanMichael Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
AS I pointed out the other day, the two are not comparable imo.
1 - The reparations after WW1 were assessed as 2-4x Germany's GDP. When Ge did not pay sufficiently, France went so far as to invade the Ruhr. 2 - At present, damage by Putin's Invasion is assessed at something like $150-200 billion, which sum of money is entirely coverable by Russian Government foreign reserves, and already exists outside Russia, and would still leave Russia with some of the highest reserves in the world.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
NEXTA @nexta_tv · 5m Ukrainian media report that the wife of former MP Kotvytskyy tried to take $28 million and 1.3 million euros out of #Ukraine via #Zakarpattya.
The money was found by the #Hungarian border guards and forced to declare it.
A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
I am confident that, despite @HYUFD entreaties, rUK would not invade Scotland.
In the same way as I know that Mrs T would not have nuked Argentina
No, we could just refuse Scotland a trade deal if they joined the EU instead.
Though if a Scottish nationalist government was ever granted an indyref2 and Yes won then the Scottish borders could well become the Scottish Donbass region, a disputed region claimed by both the rUK and Scottish government with a Unionist pro British majority stoll
No it wouldn’t. It just wouldn’t.
The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England, in fact it would be even more so
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
"The Sudan" IIRC referred to sub-Saharan region that includes country of Sudan, but also much more.
"The Congo" refers in first instance to the River Congo.
The nations are officially République démocratique du Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo) aka Congo-Kinshasa (for a time Zaire); and République du Congo (Republic of the Congo) aka Congo-Brazzaville.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
No. But *if* Russia loses, it needs to know it has lost. A myth that 'we were betrayed', 'group x did not play fair', or similar will not bode well for the future. This is why 'face-saving' that some people are calling for is, IMO, wrong-headed.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
Michael Kofman @KofmanMichael Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
NEXTA @nexta_tv · 5m Ukrainian media report that the wife of former MP Kotvytskyy tried to take $28 million and 1.3 million euros out of #Ukraine via #Zakarpattya.
The money was found by the #Hungarian border guards and forced to declare it.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
I think so, not just in aid terms but also favourable trade deals etc.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
Michael Kofman @KofmanMichael Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
Seems the Conservative strategists need to start on the Irish question. Shore up the home counties babushkas.
Slightly more seriously.... the inverted population pyramid is doing strange things to our politics. Who would have thought the elderly would be a so reactionary. Do we age into into parochialism, is there a biological switch?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
AS I pointed out the other day, the two are not comparable imo.
1 - The reparations after WW1 were assessed as 2-4x Germany's GDP. When Ge did not pay sufficiently, France went so far as to invade the Ruhr. 2 - At present, damage by Putin's Invasion is assessed at something like $150-200 billion, which sum of money is entirely coverable by Russian Government foreign reserves, and already exists outside Russia, and would still leave Russia with some of the highest reserves in the world.
$150-200 billion sounds really low. I guess rebuild costs will be lower there than here, because local wages are lower, but even so.
A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
I am confident that, despite @HYUFD entreaties, rUK would not invade Scotland.
In the same way as I know that Mrs T would not have nuked Argentina
No, we could just refuse Scotland a trade deal if they joined the EU instead.
Though if a Scottish nationalist government was ever granted an indyref2 and Yes won then the Scottish borders could well become the Scottish Donbass region, a disputed region claimed by both the rUK and Scottish government with a Unionist pro British majority stoll
No it wouldn’t. It just wouldn’t.
The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England, in fact it would be even more so
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
I think so, not just in aid terms but also favourable trade deals etc.
You don’t want to be in the position to find out, because it means something awful has happened, but rebuilding your entire economy and infrastructure form scratch almost has to boost efficiency and productivity in the long run so long as you can manage down the inevitable corruption.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Re: "compelled" you do have a wee point, though what I meant to say was that it compelled his highly public touting of arms shipments.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
I am confident that, despite @HYUFD entreaties, rUK would not invade Scotland.
In the same way as I know that Mrs T would not have nuked Argentina
No, we could just refuse Scotland a trade deal if they joined the EU instead.
Though if a Scottish nationalist government was ever granted an indyref2 and Yes won then the Scottish borders could well become the Scottish Donbass region, a disputed region claimed by both the rUK and Scottish government with a Unionist pro British majority stoll
No it wouldn’t. It just wouldn’t.
The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England, in fact it would be even more so
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Commonalities clearly exist. eg Both being in Russia.
Both? Only Karelia is in Russia.
I don’t think that Karelia was particularly heavily populated before Russia ‘took it back’,and anyway there was a big population movement.
The confusion probably exists because the Republic of Karelia only contains a small part of pre-war Finland. The bulk of the former Finnish Karelia (including Vyborg) is actually now in Leningrad Region.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Johnson is not a Putinist, nonetheless it does look like Johnson and the Conservative Party have been played by Putin and Putin shills. Perhaps played like a violin.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Sorry my bad! I completely forgot that I myself had posted this a few months ago:
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
A gradually fading anachronism, like 'the Sudan' or 'the Argentine.'
'A gradually fading anachronism...' - sounds a bit like the United Kingdom.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
I heard - and this may be incorrect - that it is Russia that prefers we call it 'the Ukraine', and that Ukranians prefer simply 'Ukraine'. PBers, you know duty: Kyiv and Ukraine, *not* Kiev and The Ukraine.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
I think so, not just in aid terms but also favourable trade deals etc.
You don’t want to be in the position to find out, because it means something awful has happened, but rebuilding your entire economy and infrastructure form scratch almost has to boost efficiency and productivity in the long run so long as you can manage down the inevitable corruption.
While Ukraine has made much progress since 1991, and seems to be very motivated to join the EU, it does have a post Soviet economy not dissimilar to Russia in terms of corruption and oligarchs.
I am all in favour of Ukranian integration into the mainstream of Europe, but it has a hell of a lot to do, even before war damage.
Zelensky speech to the Knesset seems to have ruffled a few feathers
That tweet you posted to is wrong
In the comments below she claims it was a reference made at approx 10 mins
In fact around 10:20 Zelensky says “Ukraine made our choice 8 years ago [ie in the Crimean invasion] we saved Jews… this is why you need to make your choice today”
Nothing to do with the Holocaust.
I’ve no idea who the tweeter is (although some of the answers suggest her magazine is not neutral).
But that tweet definitely deserves a sceptical read
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Commonalities clearly exist. eg Both being in Russia.
Both? Only Karelia is in Russia.
I don’t think that Karelia was particularly heavily populated before Russia ‘took it back’,and anyway there was a big population movement.
The confusion probably exists because the Republic of Karelia only contains a small part of pre-war Finland. The bulk of the former Finnish Karelia (including Vyborg) is actually now in Leningrad Region.
Finland lost just under 10% of its territory after the Winter War, and the Russian followup - including Viipuri a city of 75k.
As you say, the vast majority of the population was expelled / moved to the remaining 90% of Finland. That was 10%+ of the population of the whole country which was moved.
Michael Kofman @KofmanMichael Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
AS I pointed out the other day, the two are not comparable imo.
1 - The reparations after WW1 were assessed as 2-4x Germany's GDP. When Ge did not pay sufficiently, France went so far as to invade the Ruhr. 2 - At present, damage by Putin's Invasion is assessed at something like $150-200 billion, which sum of money is entirely coverable by Russian Government foreign reserves, and already exists outside Russia, and would still leave Russia with some of the highest reserves in the world.
That is rather missing my point: Germany (and Japan and Italy) had new democratic constitutions foisted on them. That didn't happen in WW1, and it's not going to happen now.
BREAKING: The US pledges to support its NATO allies if they put troops in Ukraine, but rules out troop deployments
Linda Thomas Greenfield: “Other Nato countries may decide that they want to put troops inside of Ukraine, that will be a decision that they have made. We don’t want to escalate this into a war with the United States but we will support our Nato allies.”
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
Actually fewer of the rich voted for Boris in 2019 than usually voted Tory.
Only 40% of voters earning over £70,000 a year (the highest earning group in the Yougov post election survey) voted Conservative in 2019 compared to 43% overall. In 2015 however 51% of those earning over £70,000 voted for Cameron's Conservative party compared to only 37% overall.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
Was Charles II a stodge of Louis XIV? Who gave the former a secret subsidy, to go to war with the Dutch (done) and return England & Scotland to Catholicism (not done).
Answer, as revealed by Secret Treaty of Dover, correspondence, etc., etc., is - hell yes.
Will be interesting to see what future revelations reveal about Boris Johnson's fiscal ties to Vladimir Putin?
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
The younger Lebedev fascinates me.
Johnson is often foolish and narcissistic, with that compromising his judgements from a moral point of view, but he's also sometimes naive.
I find it extremely interesting that, as per the Sunday Times report last week, Lebedev was there on the informal occasion, apparently as part of a laid-back and friendly network allowed access to the most central decisions, that Gove and Johnson decided to support Brexit.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Johnson is not a Putinist, nonetheless it does look like Johnson and the Conservative Party have been played by Putin and Putin shills. Perhaps played like a violin.
Played extremely badly. The amount of damage done to Russian forces by UK supplied and trained solo diera demonstrates that quite clearly.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
How did the country that received the most generous chunk of Marshall money manage to fcuk up?
Assuming that was the UK (I don’t know) I’m not surprised that the Attlee government spent it rather than invested in productive capacity
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Re: "compelled" you do have a wee point, though what I meant to say was that it compelled his highly public touting of arms shipments.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
Except now every country is now jumping up and down about how much they are doing to help out. Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?
I’ll call you out on your claims he is a Putinist any time I like.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
I think so, not just in aid terms but also favourable trade deals etc.
You don’t want to be in the position to find out, because it means something awful has happened, but rebuilding your entire economy and infrastructure form scratch almost has to boost efficiency and productivity in the long run so long as you can manage down the inevitable corruption.
While Ukraine has made much progress since 1991, and seems to be very motivated to join the EU, it does have a post Soviet economy not dissimilar to Russia in terms of corruption and oligarchs.
I am all in favour of Ukranian integration into the mainstream of Europe, but it has a hell of a lot to do, even before war damage.
Well, yes, perhaps because Russia had spent the last couple of decades interfering with Ukraine's politics. Zelinsky came in vowing to change that, and his predecessor apparently made some moves.
It'll be interesting to see how a Ukraine free from Russian interference manages.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Er... I think you are completely misunderstanding the 'cry wolf' story. How does accusing Johnson of being in the pocket of Russian interests make it more likely a future PM will be?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Seems the Conservative strategists need to start on the Irish question. Shore up the home counties babushkas.
Slightly more seriously.... the inverted population pyramid is doing strange things to our politics. Who would have thought the elderly would be a so reactionary. Do we age into into parochialism, is there a biological switch?
The highest vote for Le Pen in France comes from 25 to 50 year olds, not pensioners
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Re: "compelled" you do have a wee point, though what I meant to say was that it compelled his highly public touting of arms shipments.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
Except now every country is now jumping up and down about how much they are doing to help out. Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?
I’ll call you out on your claims he is a Putinist any time I like.
"Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?"
No, but of course I never said that, or anything close.
Call out whatever you wish to call out for whatever. Just stop flaunting your family jewels.
Unless of course they are the essence of your argument?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
Except, of course, that Germany did get saddled with reparations after WW1. And we're not planning on invading and occupying Russia, followed by the creation of new institutions, are we?
AS I pointed out the other day, the two are not comparable imo.
1 - The reparations after WW1 were assessed as 2-4x Germany's GDP. When Ge did not pay sufficiently, France went so far as to invade the Ruhr. 2 - At present, damage by Putin's Invasion is assessed at something like $150-200 billion, which sum of money is entirely coverable by Russian Government foreign reserves, and already exists outside Russia, and would still leave Russia with some of the highest reserves in the world.
$150-200 billion sounds really low. I guess rebuild costs will be lower there than here, because local wages are lower, but even so.
$100 bn for infrastructure and physical damage was an estimate put out by the UN a few days ago.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
Actually fewer of the rich voted for Boris in 2019 than usually voted Tory.
Only 40% of voters earning over £70,000 a year (the highest earning group in the Yougov post election survey) voted Conservative in 2019 compared to 43% overall. In 2015 however 51% of those earning over £70,000 voted for Cameron's Conservative party compared to only 37% overall.
But you're always telling us that the rich are more intelligent or at least better ediccated at Oxford etc because they can afford it, so they are better educated etc. Which says something about Conservative policy under Mr Johnson even by your own data.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Jesus. If that is just halfway true Putin has taken Russia right back to Stalin-esque repression and abuse.
Absolute power, and what it does. Grim
I've read other threads on the "Republics", and while they are not quite as bad as that one, life in them appears to be very fart from fun.
Coincidentally I am just watching episode 9 of series 2 of "Rick Stein's Cornwall", when he talks about Cornishman William Golding, the writer (whose murderer still walks this earth)
Apparently Lord of the Flies was inspired by Golding's experience of WW2 which was - to my surprise - intense and profound. He was in command of a missile firing boat off Normandy in 1944
Golding wrote the book to illustrate how the most civilised Germans could descend into sadistic depravity, very quickly, and that the same is true of all humanity
A lesson we have to relearn, again and again
This also points up why Democracy is ultimately so much better. It is the one unique defence against this barbaric element in the human psyche. The evil and the powerful can be brought to account
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Russia uses “the Ukraine” because this translates as “the borderlands” ie part of Russia’s sphere.
Ukraine uses Ukraine because that’s the name of the country
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
How did the country that received the most generous chunk of Marshall money manage to fcuk up?
Assuming that was the UK (I don’t know) I’m not surprised that the Attlee government spent it rather than invested in productive capacity
It was a long time ago, but the Attlee government engaged in a great deal of austerity to ensure the books balanced.
If it can be criticised, it is probably for trying to maintain the Empire and military spending for too long.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Yes. He's in the pocket of the very rich, not of the Russians. Some of the very rich happen to be Russians, that's all. But the very rich are from lots of other places as well, including the UK.
We saw it, in different ways with Cameron and Blair too. Almost a fanboy/groupie thing with the rich. Makes me wonder if there’s anything in just paying the PM (whoever is PM) actual mega bucks so they don’t need to borrow villas or the like. Trouble is you almost preemptively reward corruption risk. And the public will never support it.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
History suggests, though, that with outside support, countries can rebuild remarkably quickly.
I believe West German GDP was reaching new highs by 1950 in the early 1950s.
The Marshall Plan was atypically generous
Sure: but Ukraine would be supported financially not just by the US but also by all of Western Europe.
I think so, not just in aid terms but also favourable trade deals etc.
You don’t want to be in the position to find out, because it means something awful has happened, but rebuilding your entire economy and infrastructure form scratch almost has to boost efficiency and productivity in the long run so long as you can manage down the inevitable corruption.
While Ukraine has made much progress since 1991, and seems to be very motivated to join the EU, it does have a post Soviet economy not dissimilar to Russia in terms of corruption and oligarchs.
I am all in favour of Ukranian integration into the mainstream of Europe, but it has a hell of a lot to do, even before war damage.
Only someone in the wildest fringes of fruit-loopiness could think it would be appropriate to apply normal standards to a country suffering the kind of systematic destruction Ukraine is experiencing now.
Bearing in mind that the world's only excuse for not preventing it is our fear that we might suffer similar consequences.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Re: "compelled" you do have a wee point, though what I meant to say was that it compelled his highly public touting of arms shipments.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
Except now every country is now jumping up and down about how much they are doing to help out. Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?
I’ll call you out on your claims he is a Putinist any time I like.
"Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?"
No, but of course I never said that, or anything close.
Call out whatever you wish to call out for whatever. Just stop flaunting your family jewels.
Unless of course they are the essence of your argument?
You implied it by suggesting the only reason he is speaking publicly about it is because he’s Putin’s stooge. How do you explain everyone else doing the same then?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Yes, there are many reasons one might dislike this PM, but anyone saying he’s in the pocket of the Russians is basically telling themselves a fairy story because they already dislike him. Stick with the other reasons to dislike him guys - he ain’t Donald Trump. Otherwise you might find you’ve cried wolf too often when we really do have a corrupt PM in the pocket of a foreign power one day.
Er... I think you are completely misunderstanding the 'cry wolf' story. How does accusing Johnson of being in the pocket of Russian interests make it more likely a future PM will be?
No, I think you have misunderstood what Biggles wrote. If Johnson is not in the pocket of the Russians - and I also don't believe he is - then screaming that he is even with a complete absence of evidence, discredits those making the claim and makes it more likely they will be disbelieved in the future when we might have a PM who really is in the pay of the Russians. The Crying Wolf analogy that Biggles cites is absolutely correct so long as Johnson is not a Russian stooge.
Personally will take it like a human IF the record eventually confirms that Boris Johnson is NOT Vladimir Putin's stodge.
Just NOT holding my breath awaiting this possibility. And NOT giving him the benefit of the doubt in meantime. NOT based on what we know for sure so far.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
"I live in United Kingdom" sounds wrong to me. As does "I am going to Czech".
"I live in the Congo" sounds right. "I live in the France" doesn't.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Jesus. If that is just halfway true Putin has taken Russia right back to Stalin-esque repression and abuse.
Absolute power, and what it does. Grim
I've read other threads on the "Republics", and while they are not quite as bad as that one, life in them appears to be very fart from fun.
Coincidentally I am just watching episode 9 of series 2 of "Rick Stein's Cornwall", when he talks about Cornishman William Golding, the writer (whose murderer still walks this earth)
Apparently Lord of the Flies was inspired by Golding's experience of WW2 which was - to my surprise - intense and profound. He was in command of a missile firing boat off Normandy in 1944
Golding wrote the book to illustrate how the most civilised Germans could descend into sadistic depravity, very quickly, and that the same is true of all humanity
A lesson we have to relearn, again and again
This also points up why Democracy is ultimately so much better. It is the one unique defence against this barbaric element in the human psyche. The evil and the powerful can be brought to account
This war teaches us much....
Golding was - according to stories - a profoundly unhappy man.
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't begin to imaging the problems we'd be storing up for the future by turning Putin's feverish and mad accusations into reality.
Personally I think that is a perhaps partly a red herring, and that "republics" etc perhaps have a right to self-determination.
There are also plenty of pieces of other countries Ru has obtained by conquest quite recently.
This is an interesting and appalling thread on life in the Donetsk "republic", published last August. One of the strongest motivators of Ukranian resistance is that life in a Russian separatist Republic is very grim.
Jesus. If that is just halfway true Putin has taken Russia right back to Stalin-esque repression and abuse.
Absolute power, and what it does. Grim
I've read other threads on the "Republics", and while they are not quite as bad as that one, life in them appears to be very fart from fun.
Coincidentally I am just watching episode 9 of series 2 of "Rick Stein's Cornwall", when he talks about Cornishman William Golding, the writer (whose murderer still walks this earth)
Apparently Lord of the Flies was inspired by Golding's experience of WW2 which was - to my surprise - intense and profound. He was in command of a missile firing boat off Normandy in 1944
Golding wrote the book to illustrate how the most civilised Germans could descend into sadistic depravity, very quickly, and that the same is true of all humanity
A lesson we have to relearn, again and again
This also points up why Democracy is ultimately so much better. It is the one unique defence against this barbaric element in the human psyche. The evil and the powerful can be brought to account
This war teaches us much....
William Golding was murdered? Really? Not according to Wikipedia.
Best thing about Putin's rampant influence-peddling re: Conservative Party in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, is that it's compelled the Prime Minister to ship arms to Ukraine so as to (partly) avoid be branded as Putinist stooge like Trumpsky & Co.
Arms supply by UK to UKR also allows HMG to hold the line re: UKR refugees, thus pleasing Tory base AND red-wallers.
The arms and training by UK has been ongoing since 2015
Yes, under a normal (if underwelming) Conservative government, in concert with NATO.
In contrast, in leadup and aftermath of invasion, Boris Johnson went into overdrive. Motivated only by his Churchillian love of freedom? Or need to deflect questions re: dodgy Russian donations, dodgy Russian peer, dodgy overriding of security services, etc., etc.
His point is the arms shipment are nothing new, and they certainly weren’t him going into overdrive. It was just more of the same.
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"More of the same"
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
It’s a continuation of military support. You are suggesting the only reason for the aid to Ukraine is so that Boris can avoid awkward questions. That is demonstrably bollocks, since it started well before he got anywhere near being PM.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
I'm NOT suggesting desire to redress (for public consumption) the inconvenient fact of Russian financial support for Tories in general and Boris Johnson in particular was the ONLY reason for PM's very public pose as Tribune of Ukrainian Freedom.
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
Nope, you said it compelled him to do the arms shipments. Given that they started before he was PM that’s a bit of a stretch.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
Re: "compelled" you do have a wee point, though what I meant to say was that it compelled his highly public touting of arms shipments.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
Except now every country is now jumping up and down about how much they are doing to help out. Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?
I’ll call you out on your claims he is a Putinist any time I like.
"Do you think they are all in Putin’s pocket?"
No, but of course I never said that, or anything close.
Call out whatever you wish to call out for whatever. Just stop flaunting your family jewels.
Unless of course they are the essence of your argument?
You implied it by suggesting the only reason he is speaking publicly about it is because he’s Putin’s stooge. How do you explain everyone else doing the same then?
Because he's a proven, serial, compulsive liar, and (most) of the others are not?
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
What about “Batman” and “The Batman”?
Simple. “The” is his first name.
And Winnie the Pooh shares a middle name with John the Baptist
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
What about “Batman” and “The Batman”?
Ah but which one? There were three Batmans, produced in 1943, 1966 and 1989. (Which makes me think, weren't we due another Batman in 2012?)
Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
Sorry my bad! I completely forgot that I myself had posted this a few months ago:
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
A gradually fading anachronism, like 'the Sudan' or 'the Argentine.'
'A gradually fading anachronism...' - sounds a bit like the United Kingdom.
A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
I am confident that, despite @HYUFD entreaties, rUK would not invade Scotland.
In the same way as I know that Mrs T would not have nuked Argentina
No, we could just refuse Scotland a trade deal if they joined the EU instead.
Though if a Scottish nationalist government was ever granted an indyref2 and Yes won then the Scottish borders could well become the Scottish Donbass region, a disputed region claimed by both the rUK and Scottish government with a Unionist pro British majority stoll
No it wouldn’t. It just wouldn’t.
The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England, in fact it would be even more so
Comments
And in concert with NATO? Some of our NATO partners were refusing arms shipments from being flown in their airspace.
"While the witness referred to "[t]he Ukrainians" there has only been one documented Ukrainian speaker at Babi Yar, and that was Second Lieutenant Joseph Muller, an ethnic German from Galicia.[28] Thus, it is more accurate to describe these people as "Ukrainian speakers". A German policeman who guarded Babi Yar testified in 1965 that "the Jews were guarded by Wehrmacht units and by a Hamburg Police Battalion, which, as far as I can remember, carried the number 303." Longerich, Peter, ed. (1989). Die Ermordung der euopäischen Juden: Eine umfassende Dokumentation der Holocaust 1941–1945. Munich and Zurich. p. 123.
cited by wikipedia. seriously, seriously respected historian.
"To be fair" seems an odd way of introducing your claim.
Boris speaks to their president virtually daily and Ukraine ambassador has endorsed Boris's commitment today
Of course Ukraine is going to big up the support it's getting from anyone who is supporting it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
@KyivIndependent
·
1h
⚡️General Staff: Russia loses tank detachment in failed Kyiv assault.
According to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Russian army’s 6th tank regiment has been destroyed on March 20.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
Do you mean "more" in sense of continuation? Or increase?
And is statement actually true re: 2nd meaning?
As for "in concert with NATO" I was talking about pre-Boris Tory governments. Think refusals you cite were recently, with Boris in No. 10? Which if true underscores my point.
The same NATO allies that blocked airspace were supplying training and and weapons in the mid 2010s?
Michael Kofman
@KofmanMichael
Thoughts on the current state of the war and where things might be heading. About 2 weeks ago I suggested that Russian forces have ~3 weeks before combat effectiveness becomes increasingly exhausted. I think that's generally been right, but we're not quite there yet. Thread. 1/
https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1505596135867662336
This always has been a UK initiave
Though Boris has increased armaments supply since the start of the conflict
Really, the US had no choice.
It must be broke, right?
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
What I'm saying, is that it was ONE factor, and a BIG one.
'Call that a pint, you phoney Texas mofo'
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1505576153804800000
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205895.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjsyvfSutX2AhUGT8AKHb6jDUkQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2Bs307PSBT_oz019IG4GRK
https://twitter.com/hippke/status/1504714575551340544/photo/1
1 - The reparations after WW1 were assessed as 2-4x Germany's GDP. When Ge did not pay sufficiently, France went so far as to invade the Ruhr.
2 - At present, damage by Putin's Invasion is assessed at something like $150-200 billion, which sum of money is entirely coverable by Russian Government foreign reserves, and already exists outside Russia, and would still leave Russia with some of the highest reserves in the world.
I know you keep pushing this line that Johnson is a “Putinist”, but it’s just more of the same bollocks.
NEXTA
@nexta_tv
·
5m
Ukrainian media report that the wife of former MP Kotvytskyy tried to take $28 million and 1.3 million euros out of #Ukraine via #Zakarpattya.
The money was found by the #Hungarian border guards and forced to declare it.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1505635994627981313
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan_(region)#:~:text=Sudan is the geographic region,Africa and northern Central Africa.
"The Congo" refers in first instance to the River Congo.
The nations are officially République démocratique du Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo) aka Congo-Kinshasa (for a time Zaire); and République du Congo (Republic of the Congo) aka Congo-Brazzaville.
Others may disagree,
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic
"The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
Slightly more seriously.... the inverted population pyramid is doing strange things to our politics. Who would have thought the elderly would be a so reactionary. Do we age into into parochialism, is there a biological switch?
Lovely little Feudian slip.
Re: bollocks, kindly keep yours to yourself. Seeing as how you've already aired 'em 3 times in your last 4 comments
I am all in favour of Ukranian integration into the mainstream of Europe, but it has a hell of a lot to do, even before war damage.
In the comments below she claims it was a reference made at approx 10 mins
In fact around 10:20 Zelensky says “Ukraine made our choice 8 years ago [ie in the Crimean invasion] we saved Jews… this is why you need to make your choice today”
Nothing to do with the Holocaust.
I’ve no idea who the tweeter is (although some of the answers suggest her magazine is not neutral).
But that tweet definitely deserves a sceptical read
As you say, the vast majority of the population was expelled / moved to the remaining 90% of Finland. That was 10%+ of the population of the whole country which was moved.
Absolute power, and what it does. Grim
Linda Thomas Greenfield: “Other Nato countries may decide that they want to put troops inside of Ukraine, that will be a decision that they have made. We don’t want to escalate this into a war with the United States but we will support our Nato allies.”
https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1505638813519028229
Only 40% of voters earning over £70,000 a year (the highest earning group in the Yougov post election survey) voted Conservative in 2019 compared to 43% overall. In 2015 however 51% of those earning over £70,000 voted for Cameron's Conservative party compared to only 37% overall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
By contrast 20% of those earning over £70,000 voted LD in 2019 compared to just 11% overall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
"The Help" = a different film altogether.
Answer, as revealed by Secret Treaty of Dover, correspondence, etc., etc., is - hell yes.
Will be interesting to see what future revelations reveal about Boris Johnson's fiscal ties to Vladimir Putin?
Johnson is often foolish and narcissistic, with that compromising his judgements from a moral point of view, but he's also sometimes naive.
I find it extremely interesting that, as per the Sunday Times report last week, Lebedev was there on the informal occasion, apparently as part of a laid-back and friendly network allowed access to the most central decisions, that Gove and Johnson decided to support Brexit.
I’ll call you out on your claims he is a Putinist any time I like.
It'll be interesting to see how a Ukraine free from Russian interference manages.
No, but of course I never said that, or anything close.
Call out whatever you wish to call out for whatever. Just stop flaunting your family jewels.
Unless of course they are the essence of your argument?
Here is a piece from Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-economic-adviser-says-war-damage-tops-100-billion-so-far-2022-03-10/
In terms of cost of repairs etc, it is worth remembering that Ukraine gets 2x - 3x bang for the same buck as Western European countries do in general.
Apparently Lord of the Flies was inspired by Golding's experience of WW2 which was - to my surprise - intense and profound. He was in command of a missile firing boat off Normandy in 1944
Golding wrote the book to illustrate how the most civilised Germans could descend into sadistic depravity, very quickly, and that the same is true of all humanity
A lesson we have to relearn, again and again
This also points up why Democracy is ultimately so much better. It is the one unique defence against this barbaric element in the human psyche. The evil and the powerful can be brought to account
This war teaches us much....
Ukraine uses Ukraine because that’s the name of the country
If it can be criticised, it is probably for trying to maintain the Empire and military spending for too long.
Bearing in mind that the world's only excuse for not preventing it is our fear that we might suffer similar consequences.
Just NOT holding my breath awaiting this possibility. And NOT giving him the benefit of the doubt in meantime. NOT based on what we know for sure so far.
"I live in the Congo" sounds right. "I live in the France" doesn't.
Custom and use mostly.
It is worth noting that there is no guarantee that boys do descend into savagery. See: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months