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.
Custom and use mostly.
Actually my Czech friend (he left in 1968 for some reason but does speak the language) tends to call his country just Czech. But then the Czech Česko is a sort of adjectival form so it probably makes sense.
Czechia.
The Czech government approved Czechia as the official English short name in 2016.[28] The short name has been listed by the United Nations[29] and is used by other organizations such as the European Union,[30] the CIA,[31] and Google Maps.[32]
I have always wondered how foreigners (non-English-speaking ones) can purport to fashion the English language.
For what it's worth, have never heard an American refer to "the Czech" meaning Czech Republic.
And had never heard of a Brit using "the Czech" that way until today. It is common in UK?
Basic problem stems from fact at CR is divided between Bohemia and Moravia, and there is no (native) English word for the two combined?
Czechia has been officially used by the Czech government since 2016.
Ain't talking officialese, but rather what people in US & UK actually call country infested with Czechs . . . or "Czechians" if you prefer . . .
After Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1992, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommended Czechia for the English short name.[27] This form was not adopted at the time, leading to the long name Czech Republic being used in all circumstances. The Czech government approved Czechia as the official English short name in 2016.[28] The short name has been listed by the United Nations[29] and is used by other organizations such as the European Union,[30] the CIA,[31] and Google Maps.[32]
Sunday evening's poll watch takes us to Slovenia where the next GE is on April 24th.
The Parsifal polling organisation is, as we know, owned by a member of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), the leading party in the current centre-right coalition.
The current numbers for those parties above the threshold of 4% and changes since the last election:
Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS): 31% (+6.1) Freedom Movement (GS): 25.8% (new) Social Democrats (SD): 10.2% (+0.3) Let's Connect Slovenia (PoS): 7.2% (-6.6) New Slovenia (NSi): 4.2% (-3) List Marjan Šarec (LMS): 4.2% (-8.4)
The arrival of Robert Golob's party has transformed Slovenian politics and they present a serious and credible opposition to Janez Jansa's SDS-led Government. The Goverment coalition has down from 46% to 42.4% yet all three parties looks set to be returned to the National Assembly.
Freedom Movement, the Social Democrats and perhaps LMS could be the nucleus of the opposing block but they trail slightly with 40.2%. There are a number of other parties but with Levica (the Left), which won 9 seats last time, now in danger of dropping out of the national assembly (3.8% in the current poll), it's not easy to call this.
Given Parsifal's traditional "bias" to the SDS, this isn't a bad poll for the opposition who are ahead with centre-left pollsters such as Ninamedia and Mediana but it's all on a knife edge at this 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.
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.
Should also be noted Cameron narrowly won graduates in 2015 too, unlike Boris in 2019
Well, there you are. THe current Conservative Party is losing the intelligent people.
Yes but Boris also won a bigger majority in 2019 than Cameron in 2015.
As Adlai Stevenson replied when complimented in the 1956 presidential election 'you have the votes of all intelligent people'. 'Sadly Madam, that is not enough to win!''
The average voter is not an intellectual, they have GCSEs but not a degree
The average Tory voter actually has 'O' levels or CSEs, not GCSEs.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
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.
Custom and use mostly.
Actually my Czech friend (he left in 1968 for some reason but does speak the language) tends to call his country just Czech. But then the Czech Česko is a sort of adjectival form so it probably makes sense.
Czechia.
The Czech government approved Czechia as the official English short name in 2016.[28] The short name has been listed by the United Nations[29] and is used by other organizations such as the European Union,[30] the CIA,[31] and Google Maps.[32]
I have always wondered how foreigners (non-English-speaking ones) can purport to fashion the English language.
For what it's worth, have never heard an American refer to "the Czech" meaning Czech Republic.
And had never heard of a Brit using "the Czech" that way until today. It is common in UK?
Basic problem stems from fact at CR is divided between Bohemia and Moravia, and there is no (native) English word for the two combined?
Czechia has been officially used by the Czech government since 2016.
Ain't talking officialese, but rather what people in US & UK actually call country infested with Czechs . . . or "Czechians" if you prefer . . .
The Czech Republic.
In looking up some Czech facts I discover there is apparently something called the Global Peace Index rankings, where they rank ninth in the world.
Russia, by way of contrast, comes 154th, ahead of only notable bastions of peace and stability: CAR, Libya, DPR Congo, Somalia, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. Shocking.
I also see on the Democracy Index the USA has been listed as a flawed democracy since 2016, but before anyone gets too smug so are Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and many others.
Ukraine, by tthat group's measure, has not made notable progress, but hopefully this war might affect that positively as they seek to break out of the Russian shackles.
Not really. He inherited the policy of training the Ukrainian army but the weapons airlift in the face of Russia's mobilisation was entirely on his watch.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
He took on the most mendacious, serpentine and long lived political party in the western world, the UK Conservatives, and that most perfidious and hypocritical of beasts, the British Establishment in London. He actually thought he could "buy" them
Unsurprisingly, his billions bought him some fine words, and absolutely fuck all else. Not even Chelsea FC, in the end
Some interesting undercurrents at the Conservative Spring Conference this past weekend.
A lot has been said about the Prime Minister's comments - having looked at them, if I didn't know better, I'd say he was ad-libbing to notes or bullet points rather than to a crafted well-drafted speech. It looks and sounds amateurish rather than what you would expect from a PM with an army of advisers and speech writers at his command.
Some might suggest the verbal clumsiness is part of the act - maybe and perhaps there's an element of cheap provocateur journalism but the act now looks tired and after everything that has happened, you can see why some might be calling for Boris Johnson to get off the stage.
On the economic front, Sunak is playing an old game in new colours - get the pain out of the way just in time for a pre-election tax cut (perhaps also as a ploy for a future leadership election). The problem with being a "responsible" CoE in difficult times is no one thanks you for it and the cost of rising costs ends up inevitably with the voters through having to pay more for everything (the militant will then chase that inflation via wage increases).
The only thing in his favour is if Rees-Mogg disagrees you're probably dong something right.
The antics of P&O Ferries are probably the last thing Sunak wanted or needed as it brought back some bad old memories of how employers were when things got tough and trying to b the workers' friend is never an act the Conservatives can play with conviction.
I'm still not certain what kind of Conservative Party we have or rather what kind of Party Sunak would like to lead - one that wins elections is the obvious answer but I detect a more fundamental crisis of the Tory soul (yes, they do have them). As others have said, events (as MacMillan once mentioned) have gotten in the way and are now posing awkward questions for all parties - the re-defining of the political landscape post-Covid and in the context of shifting alliances elsewhere challenge us all.
Thanks. At this moment apart from retail trivialities and rhetoric I can't see any genuine fundamental differences between Tory and Labour. If others can I would find it helpful to have them explained.
Really big differences show up in two ways: Genuine policy divergence; and where the state managed money is raised and spent, and how much as a % of GDP. Tinkering with a billion here and billion there doesn't count.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
Some years ago, at Sandhurst, there was a scandal. Rich foreigners at the military academy were trying to buy grades. One even bought an instructor a car.
It was noticed that in each case, their marks and grades had got *worse* after bribing people. The guy who gave the car as a gift was binned from the place by the guy he gave the car to......
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
He took on the most mendacious, serpentine and long lived political party in the western world, the UK Conservatives, and that most perfidious and hypocritical of beasts, the British Establishment in London. He actually thought he could "buy" them
Unsurprisingly, his billions bought him some fine words, and absolutely fuck all else. Not even Chelsea FC, in the end
AND rubber chicken. Never forget the rubber chicken.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
He took on the most mendacious, serpentine and long lived political party in the western world, the UK Conservatives, and that most perfidious and hypocritical of beasts, the British Establishment in London. He actually thought he could "buy" them
Unsurprisingly, his billions bought him some fine words, and absolutely fuck all else. Not even Chelsea FC, in the end
AND rubber chicken. Never forget the rubber chicken.
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.
Custom and use mostly.
Actually my Czech friend (he left in 1968 for some reason but does speak the language) tends to call his country just Czech. But then the Czech Česko is a sort of adjectival form so it probably makes sense.
Czechia.
The Czech government approved Czechia as the official English short name in 2016.[28] The short name has been listed by the United Nations[29] and is used by other organizations such as the European Union,[30] the CIA,[31] and Google Maps.[32]
I have always wondered how foreigners (non-English-speaking ones) can purport to fashion the English language.
For what it's worth, have never heard an American refer to "the Czech" meaning Czech Republic.
And had never heard of a Brit using "the Czech" that way until today. It is common in UK?
Basic problem stems from fact at CR is divided between Bohemia and Moravia, and there is no (native) English word for the two combined?
Like you I have never heard anyone refer to the country as 'The Czech' I have heard it called 'The Czech Republic' and indeed I thought that until the recent name change that was its official name.
We were reading all that stuff today about false positive PCR tests within 90 days. However, this was a positive LFT and she does have mild symptoms. My sister-in-law-in-law* was whacked for a couple of days.
* Is there an easier way to refer to your wife's brother's wife?
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
We were reading all that stuff today about false positive PCR tests within 90 days. However, this was a positive LFT and she does have mild symptoms. My sister-in-law-in-law* was whacked for a couple of days.
* Is there an easier way to refer to your wife's brother's wife?
I stick to brother in law for my wife’s sisters husband. Omicron, both versions, does seem to have an ability to reinfect previously recovered people.
"A chilling new threat. Russia's Defense Ministry says Ukraine has until 5am on March 21 to surrender the besieged city of Mariupol, adding it'll let residents and troops who lay down arms leave. Anyone left behind "with the bandits" will "face a military tribunal.""
Worth noting that Russia has been consistently attacking civilian evacuations, and has on multiple occasions over the past 8 years offered Ukrainian soldiers safe passage out providing they gave up their arms, then proceeded to slaughter them.
"The Russia-backed gunmen came and hauled away Oleksiy Pichko on the afternoon of June 17, 2014, three days after he allegedly broke into a neighbor’s home in a rundown district on the outskirts of Slovyansk, in eastern Ukraine, and stole two shirts and a pair of pants.
The 30-year-old Pichko, a civilian, was taken to a gloomy two-story building surrounded by armed guards and barricades. He was interrogated, forced to write a confession, and summarily shot to death by a firing squad of Russia-backed separatists who had seized control of the city. His executioners discarded his body on a battlefield of the war raging between them and Ukrainian forces, where it could be blown to bits by exploding artillery shells, according to family members and friends who sought out his whereabouts when he was taken and looked for his body after learning of his death."
We were reading all that stuff today about false positive PCR tests within 90 days. However, this was a positive LFT and she does have mild symptoms. My sister-in-law-in-law* was whacked for a couple of days.
* Is there an easier way to refer to your wife's brother's wife?
I stick to brother in law for my wife’s sisters husband. Omicron, both versions, does seem to have an ability to reinfect previously recovered people.
It does indeed. I have a friend whose kids have just tested positive for the second time this year.
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.
Custom and use mostly.
Actually my Czech friend (he left in 1968 for some reason but does speak the language) tends to call his country just Czech. But then the Czech Česko is a sort of adjectival form so it probably makes sense.
Czechia.
The Czech government approved Czechia as the official English short name in 2016.[28] The short name has been listed by the United Nations[29] and is used by other organizations such as the European Union,[30] the CIA,[31] and Google Maps.[32]
I have always wondered how foreigners (non-English-speaking ones) can purport to fashion the English language.
For what it's worth, have never heard an American refer to "the Czech" meaning Czech Republic.
And had never heard of a Brit using "the Czech" that way until today. It is common in UK?
Basic problem stems from fact at CR is divided between Bohemia and Moravia, and there is no (native) English word for the two combined?
Like you I have never heard anyone refer to the country as 'The Czech' I have heard it called 'The Czech Republic' and indeed I thought that until the recent name change that was its official name.
I’m decidedly old-fashioned in these things None of this Russia nonsense, it’ll always be Muscovy to me.
Not really. He inherited the policy of training the Ukrainian army but the weapons airlift in the face of Russia's mobilisation was entirely on his watch.
For which Boris deserves credit. (Someone please make sure Big_G hasn't fallen off his perch!)
My point is that there are still PLENTY of questions re: his motivation let alone his sincerity.
And integrity? As they say in Boston, Mass - forgetaboutit!
I'm still not certain what kind of Conservative Party we have or rather what kind of Party Sunak would like to lead - one that wins elections is the obvious answer but I detect a more fundamental crisis of the Tory soul (yes, they do have them). As others have said, events (as MacMillan once mentioned) have gotten in the way and are now posing awkward questions for all parties - the re-defining of the political landscape post-Covid and in the context of shifting alliances elsewhere challenge us all.
Your last sentence mirror's several of my posts since this war broke out
It was interesting listening to Sophie Raworth this morning interviewing Rachel Reeves
Sophie - this week the Prime Minister went to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to reduce fuel prices, would Keir Starmer have gone Rachel - The Prime Minister rejects Putin but goes to another dictator so no Sophie - Is it not right to attempt to get oil prices down Rachel - Yes but not by going begging to Saudi Arabia Sophie - Would Labour still accept oil from Saudi Arabia Rachel - Yes Sophie - So what is wrong with trying to get Saudi to reduce oil prices Rachel - Silence
There are plenty of devils out there so you need a pretty good stock of long spoons to survive in the modern world.
One of the disadvantages of being a democracy is many of the countries with which we want to do business aren't. Now, you may choose to make a party political point out of this (or you may not) and people scoffed at the notion of an "ethical" foreign policy 25 years ago.
The problem is we can't control where the oil is - if we don't get it from Russia, the big players remain Saudi Arabia and the UAE and you can ask some pretty searching questions about both countries and the behaviour of their rulers (and in a democracy, we can and should) but your options are simple - either sit in the dark or grab your long spoon.
There's a bigger point about our dependence on oil which, ever since the Yom Kippur War when oil prices quadrupled without OPEC losing a single customer, has lurked in the battleground but about which we've done precious little. Yes, our cars are much cleaner and more fuel efficient but how many are there now compared with 1974? The fact remains our economy and indeed our very way of life is hyper sensitive to the availability and price of resources (not just oil) which are often in the hands of countries where, to put it mildly, the rulers don't seem to have the personal and official checks and balances our system (despite the antics of the current Government) still possesses.
Johnson has put on a lot of weight again recently. I wonder if it correlated with his polling.
You have to word quite hard to pack on that kind of weight, I’d have thought. Too much late night Deliveroo, I reckon.
I fight my weight and lose weight by a strict soup and fruit diet over several weeks
However, when under stress, or as is likely with Boris burning the midnight oil, it is most likely his increased weight is by over snacking between meals
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
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 liar, and (most) of the others are not?
Ah ok, so it’s based on your prejudices about the man, not actually facts.
Fact that Boris Johnson is a proven liar is not a fact?
No, facts about him being a Putinist, or his stooge. None of which have been provided in this discussion, simply your assertion that he is one.
I've actually made several points, which you simply brush off.
Such as Boris making a security threat a peer of the realm, to mention but one.
No, that's not evidence that he's a Putinist. The appointment has done nothing to further Putin's agenda. Your other piece of evidence was the arms shipments to Ukraine. How's that working out for Putin?
Nope. Because YOU said (and I quote)
"No, facts about him being a Putinist, or his stooge. None of which have been provided in this discussion, simply your assertion that he is one."
But yours truly DID provide facts (such as "Lord" Lebedev) which you have NOT refuted, just pooh-poohed.
NOT the same thing. Unless you think your utterances are ipso facto definitive? (Are you & HYUFD twins?)
No, those are not facts proving he is a Putinist, or his stooge. Or are you seriously claiming that weapons shipments from the UK to Ukraine prove he is one?
Word twisting is NOT same thing as arguing. (Anyway, you really are NOT up to the HYUFD gold standard in this regard.)
Kindly stop putting YOUR words into MY mouth. Save your gonads AND your sophistry for yourself.
This was the claim that started the whole thing
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.
I'd have to go back further in the archives to find your other statements saying he is a Putinist, but they happen from time to time. In any case, I don't see any evidence presented here that he is one.
There is a problem. A real one.
- The Good Europeans (especially the Germans) backed the cause of Nothing To See Here. Arms shipments were inflammatory and dangerous. Ukraine needed Ito be reasonable and comply with Minsk 2. - The UK and US went for arming the Ukrainians over a period of years - in depth it now turns out. Not just a few crates of weapons. They really did something here. - The Eastern European countries that aren't a Putin franchise (see Hungary) backed the UK and US approach.
The problem is that this is Bad Facts. At least to some people. So they need something better than.... reality.
The French and the Swedes were both very happy to sell the Ukrainians arms. It was mostly the Italians and the Germans (both of whom are big purchasers of Russian gas) who toed the Kremlin line.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
I'm still not certain what kind of Conservative Party we have or rather what kind of Party Sunak would like to lead - one that wins elections is the obvious answer but I detect a more fundamental crisis of the Tory soul (yes, they do have them). As others have said, events (as MacMillan once mentioned) have gotten in the way and are now posing awkward questions for all parties - the re-defining of the political landscape post-Covid and in the context of shifting alliances elsewhere challenge us all.
Your last sentence mirror's several of my posts since this war broke out
It was interesting listening to Sophie Raworth this morning interviewing Rachel Reeves
Sophie - this week the Prime Minister went to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to reduce fuel prices, would Keir Starmer have gone Rachel - The Prime Minister rejects Putin but goes to another dictator so no Sophie - Is it not right to attempt to get oil prices down Rachel - Yes but not by going begging to Saudi Arabia Sophie - Would Labour still accept oil from Saudi Arabia Rachel - Yes Sophie - So what is wrong with trying to get Saudi to reduce oil prices Rachel - Silence
There are plenty of devils out there so you need a pretty good stock of long spoons to survive in the modern world.
One of the disadvantages of being a democracy is many of the countries with which we want to do business aren't. Now, you may choose to make a party political point out of this (or you may not) and people scoffed at the notion of an "ethical" foreign policy 25 years ago.
The problem is we can't control where the oil is - if we don't get it from Russia, the big players remain Saudi Arabia and the UAE and you can ask some pretty searching questions about both countries and the behaviour of their rulers (and in a democracy, we can and should) but your options are simple - either sit in the dark or grab your long spoon.
There's a bigger point about our dependence on oil which, ever since the Yom Kippur War when oil prices quadrupled without OPEC losing a single customer, has lurked in the battleground but about which we've done precious little. Yes, our cars are much cleaner and more fuel efficient but how many are there now compared with 1974? The fact remains our economy and indeed our very way of life is hyper sensitive to the availability and price of resources (not just oil) which are often in the hands of countries where, to put it mildly, the rulers don't seem to have the personal and official checks and balances our system (despite the antics of the current Government) still possesses.
It seems that the vehicle fuel usage in the UK has been falling since a peak in 2007
I'm still not certain what kind of Conservative Party we have or rather what kind of Party Sunak would like to lead - one that wins elections is the obvious answer but I detect a more fundamental crisis of the Tory soul (yes, they do have them). As others have said, events (as MacMillan once mentioned) have gotten in the way and are now posing awkward questions for all parties - the re-defining of the political landscape post-Covid and in the context of shifting alliances elsewhere challenge us all.
Thanks. At this moment apart from retail trivialities and rhetoric I can't see any genuine fundamental differences between Tory and Labour. If others can I would find it helpful to have them explained.
Really big differences show up in two ways: Genuine policy divergence; and where the state managed money is raised and spent, and how much as a % of GDP. Tinkering with a billion here and billion there doesn't count.
The tactic of the new Chief of Staff at No.10 and presumably the thrust of Dowden's speech is to try to create those "fundamental differences" because the Conservatives probably believe they will always lose in a battle between two high spending high taxation social democratic parties.
We see @Big_G_NorthWales also trying to play up the notion Labour is weak on energy independence and to be fair Reeves wasn't brilliant today. I've commented on this on my previous but in a way we have been hostages to countries with less than immaculate Governmental systems and human rights records for decades - we propped them up in the Cold War because they were "our kind of bastards" (so to speak).
I suspect few will care where their litre of unleaded or diesel comes from as long as it doesn't cost too much and Saudi Aramco's decision to boost production will probably have the desired effect on oil prices tomorrow.
The current conflict has illuminated those instances where the long spoon is necessary - whether it's football clubs taking money from Russian oligarchs or Saudi royalty or horse racing being dependent on the UAE royal family - but it's the reality of the world in which we live and arguably always has been.
Put simply, money buys power but so too does resource control whether it's oil for our cars or rare metals for our mobile phones and computers.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
Has anyone seen Putin and HYUFD in the same room?
It's very hard to tell who is in the room with Putin unless you can get a very wide angle.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
As has been written on analysts sites, Putin was always a spy and never a military man. At the end of the day he is out of his depth but he doesn't know it.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
Are you for real? Russian money in London was the bane of Putin's existence. He wanted to keep it in the country to spend on modernising his military.
There's a long list of European politicians who are known to have been paid by the Russians as a reward for serving their interests on oil and gas contracts. Those are the people you should be apoplectic about.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
Gerhard Schröder (and the other German politicians who were similarly purchased) - an investment that worked very well for Putin.
He was a few months away from getting Nord Stream 2 online. Which would have meant that Putin could have shut off gas to Eastern Europe (selectively) without affecting the big money earner in Western Europe.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
Putin is also the kind of person who looks at a country led by a man who once pretended to play a piano with his penis & assumes that they are not a serious opponent. “How could such a person ever inspire resistence against the overwhelming power of the Russian military? They are nothing but an embarassment: the antithesis of Russian manly prowess” he must have thought.
And yet here we are: it turns out that there are more things on heaven & earth than are thought of in Putin’s philosophy, one of which is that comedians & actors can also be effective, personally brave leaders in wartime who inspire people by their example.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
It is quite remarkable to see how quickly you forget your own piteous and pious cries for unity.
I'm still not certain what kind of Conservative Party we have or rather what kind of Party Sunak would like to lead - one that wins elections is the obvious answer but I detect a more fundamental crisis of the Tory soul (yes, they do have them). As others have said, events (as MacMillan once mentioned) have gotten in the way and are now posing awkward questions for all parties - the re-defining of the political landscape post-Covid and in the context of shifting alliances elsewhere challenge us all.
Your last sentence mirror's several of my posts since this war broke out
It was interesting listening to Sophie Raworth this morning interviewing Rachel Reeves
Sophie - this week the Prime Minister went to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to reduce fuel prices, would Keir Starmer have gone Rachel - The Prime Minister rejects Putin but goes to another dictator so no Sophie - Is it not right to attempt to get oil prices down Rachel - Yes but not by going begging to Saudi Arabia Sophie - Would Labour still accept oil from Saudi Arabia Rachel - Yes Sophie - So what is wrong with trying to get Saudi to reduce oil prices Rachel - Silence
There are plenty of devils out there so you need a pretty good stock of long spoons to survive in the modern world.
One of the disadvantages of being a democracy is many of the countries with which we want to do business aren't. Now, you may choose to make a party political point out of this (or you may not) and people scoffed at the notion of an "ethical" foreign policy 25 years ago.
The problem is we can't control where the oil is - if we don't get it from Russia, the big players remain Saudi Arabia and the UAE and you can ask some pretty searching questions about both countries and the behaviour of their rulers (and in a democracy, we can and should) but your options are simple - either sit in the dark or grab your long spoon.
There's a bigger point about our dependence on oil which, ever since the Yom Kippur War when oil prices quadrupled without OPEC losing a single customer, has lurked in the battleground but about which we've done precious little. Yes, our cars are much cleaner and more fuel efficient but how many are there now compared with 1974? The fact remains our economy and indeed our very way of life is hyper sensitive to the availability and price of resources (not just oil) which are often in the hands of countries where, to put it mildly, the rulers don't seem to have the personal and official checks and balances our system (despite the antics of the current Government) still possesses.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Putin may be the kind of person who just looks at the comparitive numbers of military assets and assumes that one side must therefore inevitably win if their numbers are larger, notwithstanding many examples of history of smaller forces prevailing, or at least damaging the superior force.
Putin is also the kind of person who looks at a country led by a man who once pretended to play a piano with his penis & assumes that they are not a serious opponent. “How could such a person ever inspire resistence against the overwhelming power of the Russian military? They are nothing but an embarassment: the antithesis of Russian manly prowess” he must have thought.
And yet here we are: it turns out that there are more things on heaven & earth than are thought of in Putin’s philosophy, one of which is that comedians & actors can also be effective, personally brave leaders in wartime who inspire their people by their example.
On a serious note - the turn around in the Ukrainian military since 2014 is startling. In 2014 they repeatedly got smashed by Russian artillery, because they were congregating in fixed positions, waiting for orders from higher up. In 2022, they seemed to have created an extremely flexible, responsive military.
While foreign aid must have played a part, there must be a groups of professionals in the Ukrainian military who created this. The books they write on this will be fascinating.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
That's a little harsh: if you think the Germans are dependent on Russian gas, you should see the statistics for Eastern Europe and even Italy.
But that shouldn't surprise you: countries will tend to buy energy from the nearest source, because transport is expensive.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
Are you for real? Russian money in London was the bane of Putin's existence. He wanted to keep it in the country to spend on modernising his military.
There's a long list of European politicians who are known to have been paid by the Russians as a reward for serving their interests on oil and gas contracts. Those are the people you should be apoplectic about.
Yes, I'm for real.
And I'm against ANY politicos getting bribed by foreign tyrants. Most especially those in MY country, America.
So does ill-gotten & -give largess from Putin & Co. to UK politicos, bother you LESS?
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Conservative politicians were bought for a few million not several billions.
There might have been several billion of Russian money spent in London but the effects of that were more likely negative for the Conservative party.
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
'The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England'
Lovely little Feudian slip.
And use of the article "The Borders"
Yep, that pesky definite article pops up with those other areas/regions so beloved by greater British nationalists, 'the' Orkneys and 'the' Shetlands. I'm sensing a pattern..
In any case HYUFD is talking rubbish. There is no area called the Borders or The Borders.
I thought the filth in Edinburgh were the Lothian And Borders police? Doesn't get much more official than that.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
That's a little harsh: if you think the Germans are dependent on Russian gas, you should see the statistics for Eastern Europe and even Italy.
But that shouldn't surprise you: countries will tend to buy energy from the nearest source, because transport is expensive.
Will the Aramco decision make much difference to oil prices?
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Not being a farmer I confess I did not realise being visible was an issue for any breed of cow.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
Are you for real? Russian money in London was the bane of Putin's existence. He wanted to keep it in the country to spend on modernising his military.
There's a long list of European politicians who are known to have been paid by the Russians as a reward for serving their interests on oil and gas contracts. Those are the people you should be apoplectic about.
Ah hem - Putin is rumoured to personally own 50 St James's Street London, so he's been quite happy to squirrel his own money away in London.
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
'The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England'
Lovely little Feudian slip.
And use of the article "The Borders"
Yep, that pesky definite article pops up with those other areas/regions so beloved by greater British nationalists, 'the' Orkneys and 'the' Shetlands. I'm sensing a pattern..
In any case HYUFD is talking rubbish. There is no area called the Borders or The Borders.
Yes there is, Dumfriesshire, Roxburghshire and Berwickshire etc
You are even more wrong. Dumfriesshire is not part of "The Borders" at all. Because there is (a) no "The Borders" and (b) Dumfriesshire does not exist any more.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Not being a farmer I confess I did not realise being visible was an issue for any breed of cow.
If they are some way away up a moory hillside it does help.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
That's a little harsh: if you think the Germans are dependent on Russian gas, you should see the statistics for Eastern Europe and even Italy.
But that shouldn't surprise you: countries will tend to buy energy from the nearest source, because transport is expensive.
Hasn't Elon Musk figured out how to wirelessly transmit enough electricity to power everything on earth from a global satellite network yet? What is he wasting his time on?
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
'The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England'
Lovely little Feudian slip.
And use of the article "The Borders"
Yep, that pesky definite article pops up with those other areas/regions so beloved by greater British nationalists, 'the' Orkneys and 'the' Shetlands. I'm sensing a pattern..
In any case HYUFD is talking rubbish. There is no area called the Borders or The Borders.
Yes there is, Dumfriesshire, Roxburghshire and Berwickshire etc
You are even more wrong. Dumfriesshire is not part of "The Borders" at all. Because there is (a) no "The Borders" and (b) Dumfriesshire does not exist any more.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
Indeed - I still remember, with a smile, the sneering at California and it's particulate emission regulations. Otherwise those stupid Americans would have more diesel vehicles. Which Would Be Better.
The discovery that the Californians were right and that particulates were a huge problem led, of course, to the great Emissions Cheating scandal. Which was caused by the squeeze on emissions and efficiency demanded from diesel vehicles.
In summary: we use less oil than we used to. Albeit not a lot less.
I've found another document in the series looking at road vehicle consumption which is well worth a read.
The point remains a lot of people remain essentially dependent on the availability of petrol or diesel whether it's for a car or machinery in their business or whatever and that dependency leaves us susceptible to supply interruptions and price changes just as we were in 1973.
It's not just oil - there are a number of other key resources on which we are absurdly dependent - rare metals such as iridium for example and others which are key components in all our electronics and semi-conductors.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Not being a farmer I confess I did not realise being visible was an issue for any breed of cow.
It's the cows bred to be invisible you need to worry about.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Not being a farmer I confess I did not realise being visible was an issue for any breed of cow.
If they are some way away up a moory hillside it does help.
Re: visibility, don't farmers across UK & RI still put paint on their livestock?
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
It is quite remarkable to see how quickly you forget your own piteous and pious cries for unity.
Is Germany an appeaser, collaborator or both?
Germany is none of those but if you think it is immune from criticism when it is not only sustaining Putin's war machine by its addiction to Russian gas but has a half hearted support for Ukraine
I expect much closer defence and security cooperation with the EU but time to be truthful
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
Gerhard Schröder (and the other German politicians who were similarly purchased) - an investment that worked very well for Putin.
He was a few months away from getting Nord Stream 2 online. Which would have meant that Putin could have shut off gas to Eastern Europe (selectively) without affecting the big money earner in Western Europe.
That's not quite true: Germany bought very little gas from the old trans-Ukraine pipeline since Nord Stream 1 came on stream; instead the gas was mostly purchased by the Italians to make up for falling supplies from North Africa.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
That's a little harsh: if you think the Germans are dependent on Russian gas, you should see the statistics for Eastern Europe and even Italy.
But that shouldn't surprise you: countries will tend to buy energy from the nearest source, because transport is expensive.
Hasn't Elon Musk figured out how to wirelessly transmit enough electricity to power everything on earth from a global satellite network yet? What is he wasting his time on?
Elon Musk, rather famously, dismisses the idea of Space Power Systems (SPS). As he puts it, it is always simpler and cheaper to put the solar panels on the ground.
On a practical notes, a number of advances in technology (a part of the ongoing electronics and materials revolutions) has made trans-oceanic power cables perfectly possible. A power connector from the UK to Morocco, for example, is perfectly feasible.
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
'The Borders voted 67% to stay in the UK in 2014 and neighbour England'
Lovely little Feudian slip.
And use of the article "The Borders"
Yep, that pesky definite article pops up with those other areas/regions so beloved by greater British nationalists, 'the' Orkneys and 'the' Shetlands. I'm sensing a pattern..
In any case HYUFD is talking rubbish. There is no area called the Borders or The Borders.
Yes there is, Dumfriesshire, Roxburghshire and Berwickshire etc
You are even more wrong. Dumfriesshire is not part of "The Borders" at all. Because there is (a) no "The Borders" and (b) Dumfriesshire does not exist any more.
I've always referred to the Scottish Borders Council area as 'the borders'. Nothing weird about that although Dumfriesshire (Moffat, Lockerbie, Langholm, Gretna etc) is Dumfriesshire (or Dumfries and Galloway) not the Borders.
I don't like the use of the definite article with Ukraine even if used in some languages like German.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
Are you for real? Russian money in London was the bane of Putin's existence. He wanted to keep it in the country to spend on modernising his military.
There's a long list of European politicians who are known to have been paid by the Russians as a reward for serving their interests on oil and gas contracts. Those are the people you should be apoplectic about.
Yes, I'm for real.
And I'm against ANY politicos getting bribed by foreign tyrants. Most especially those in MY country, America.
So does ill-gotten & -give largess from Putin & Co. to UK politicos, bother you LESS?
"Ill-gotten"? Remind us where Russian money comes from. They're not running a drugs cartel but selling gas to Germany et al. Several EU Prime Ministers were put directly on the Russian state's payroll.
What you are doing is conflating this with party donations including from Ukrainian dissidents who clearly had no love for Putin, and tarring anyone vaguely Russian with the Kremlin brush.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
My 2016 BMW diesel emissions exempt me from any city charges and my annual road tax is £30
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Perhaps Putin thought that his crack military (crack in sense of elite NOT lead by crack-heads) would roll over UKR in matter of days, and he'd get the UK arms as spoils of war?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
It is quite remarkable how blindsided so many are when the real reason for Putin's war chest is the disaster that was Angela Merkel when she sold Germany and the EU's soul to Putin by becoming so dependent on his gas
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
Gerhard Schröder (and the other German politicians who were similarly purchased) - an investment that worked very well for Putin.
He was a few months away from getting Nord Stream 2 online. Which would have meant that Putin could have shut off gas to Eastern Europe (selectively) without affecting the big money earner in Western Europe.
That's not quite true: Germany bought very little gas from the old trans-Ukraine pipeline since Nord Stream 1 came on stream; instead the gas was mostly purchased by the Italians to make up for falling supplies from North Africa.
Getting Germany to go ahead with and *part fund* Nord Stream 2 was the prize - what was Khrushchev's line about "the capitalists will sell us the rope"?
Indeed - I still remember, with a smile, the sneering at California and it's particulate emission regulations. Otherwise those stupid Americans would have more diesel vehicles. Which Would Be Better.
The discovery that the Californians were right and that particulates were a huge problem led, of course, to the great Emissions Cheating scandal. Which was caused by the squeeze on emissions and efficiency demanded from diesel vehicles.
We now the ULEZ out in my part of London and it is effectively taking older petrol and diesel vehicles off the road. Oddly enough, the ULEZ, while implemented by Sadiq Khan, was conceived by Boris Johnson's team during his tenure as London Mayor so it's a genuine bi-partisan idea.
It's improving London's air particularly through reductions in Nitrogen dioxide emissions. The big problem now is PM 2.5 and getting that reduced.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
stodge - always choose the lesser of two evils. And as much as I dislike countries committing human rights abuses inside their own borders, I think the priority has to be defending states against unprovoked aggression. That means siding with the gulf nations over Russia. Countries that are not potential global powers.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
My 2016 BMW diesel emissions exempt me from any city charges and my annual road tax is £30
Indeed, the ULEZ in London requires diesels to meet Euro6 emission standards so most post 2015 will be fine.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
My 2016 BMW diesel emissions exempt me from any city charges and my annual road tax is £30
It is only a matter of a few years until the particulate issue will cause a further tightening of standards.
This is why the Emissions Scandal happened - the tightening of particulate emissions standards on one side and the requirements to increase efficiency (reduced CO2) on the other made it impossible to build a diesel engine for the price required.
Indeed - I still remember, with a smile, the sneering at California and it's particulate emission regulations. Otherwise those stupid Americans would have more diesel vehicles. Which Would Be Better.
The discovery that the Californians were right and that particulates were a huge problem led, of course, to the great Emissions Cheating scandal. Which was caused by the squeeze on emissions and efficiency demanded from diesel vehicles.
We now the ULEZ out in my part of London and it is effectively taking older petrol and diesel vehicles off the road. Oddly enough, the ULEZ, while implemented by Sadiq Khan, was conceived by Boris Johnson's team during his tenure as London Mayor so it's a genuine bi-partisan idea.
It's improving London's air particularly through reductions in Nitrogen dioxide emissions. The big problem now is PM 2.5 and getting that reduced.
That's why I think that diesels are doomed in quite short order - increasing efficiency *and* reducing particulates *and* reducing NO2 emissions... the regulations will get tighter and tighter. With electric cars becoming cheaper, the old argument that "we have to live with what is possible" is now gone.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Maybe he made the same error as the Lib Dems? He underestimated the sheer ruthlessness of the Conservative party. You can do all the favours/give them all the money you like but if you're no longer of use to them you'll be thrown to the wolves ASAP.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Lovely breed. Supposed to be bred to be easily visible and countable at a distance ...
Not being a farmer I confess I did not realise being visible was an issue for any breed of cow.
If they are some way away up a moory hillside it does help.
They are incredibly tough and stay out all year, even in snow.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
I go out for the day to visit James Rebanks' farm - and what a charming and knowledgeable host he was - then come back here to learn that William Golding was murdered and Johnson has sex with custard or possibly has custard during sex, or something.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Is that a George Galloway?
No, that breed has a more feline aspect.
But by some quirk of biology strangely more full of bullshit.
Tell you what, if I was Vlad V Putin, and I'd spent several billion pounds ensuring that the Tory Party and thus the UK was safely in my pocket, I'd be quite pissed off to discover that "in my pocket" actually meant the Tory Party and the UK arming my sworn enemy, over years, with several thousand anti-tank missiles which have now wiped out 25% of my mechanised military
God knows what Britain might have done if Putin HADN'T bought us off with his billions in London. Given nukes to Kyiv?
Several Billion? The Conservative Party wishes. I think that type of donation would have exploded onto the scene immediately it was reportedly to the Electoral Commission.
Just because Russia isn't exactly getting their monies worth currently, doesn't mean they didn't do it. I mean clearly they did.
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?)
Comments
His main function during the war has been as an enthusiastic advocate for other countries to do the same.
Fair dos.
He’s still mendacious “bin bag full of custard”.
The Parsifal polling organisation is, as we know, owned by a member of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), the leading party in the current centre-right coalition.
The current numbers for those parties above the threshold of 4% and changes since the last election:
Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS): 31% (+6.1)
Freedom Movement (GS): 25.8% (new)
Social Democrats (SD): 10.2% (+0.3)
Let's Connect Slovenia (PoS): 7.2% (-6.6)
New Slovenia (NSi): 4.2% (-3)
List Marjan Šarec (LMS): 4.2% (-8.4)
The arrival of Robert Golob's party has transformed Slovenian politics and they present a serious and credible opposition to Janez Jansa's SDS-led Government. The Goverment coalition has down from 46% to 42.4% yet all three parties looks set to be returned to the National Assembly.
Freedom Movement, the Social Democrats and perhaps LMS could be the nucleus of the opposing block but they trail slightly with 40.2%. There are a number of other parties but with Levica (the Left), which won 9 seats last time, now in danger of dropping out of the national assembly (3.8% in the current poll), it's not easy to call this.
Given Parsifal's traditional "bias" to the SDS, this isn't a bad poll for the opposition who are ahead with centre-left pollsters such as Ninamedia and Mediana but it's all on a knife edge at this point.
In looking up some Czech facts I discover there is apparently something called the Global Peace Index rankings, where they rank ninth in the world.
Russia, by way of contrast, comes 154th, ahead of only notable bastions of peace and stability: CAR, Libya, DPR Congo, Somalia, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. Shocking.
I also see on the Democracy Index the USA has been listed as a flawed democracy since 2016, but before anyone gets too smug so are Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and many others.
Ukraine, by tthat group's measure, has not made notable progress, but hopefully this war might affect that positively as they seek to break out of the Russian shackles.
I think Donne did a few as well.
More than enough to cover Johnson’s asthmatic amours.
Unsurprisingly, his billions bought him some fine words, and absolutely fuck all else. Not even Chelsea FC, in the end
Really big differences show up in two ways: Genuine policy divergence; and where the state managed money is raised and spent, and how much as a % of GDP. Tinkering with a billion here and billion there doesn't count.
It was noticed that in each case, their marks and grades had got *worse* after bribing people. The guy who gave the car as a gift was binned from the place by the guy he gave the car to......
You have to word quite hard to pack on that kind of weight, I’d have thought. Too much late night Deliveroo, I reckon.
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
That is just dumb luck!
* Is there an easier way to refer to your wife's brother's wife?
Does seem Putin though the war would be a pushover, or that he'd intimidate Ukrainians & etc. into backing down without a fight?
Could all that Ruski money sloshing around London, have helped embolden Putin to unleash his dogs of war?
One problem with bribing people, is that the type who will take the dough, are also the kind to rat & renege on you when the going gets rough & tough.
Omicron, both versions, does seem to have an ability to reinfect previously recovered people.
"A chilling new threat. Russia's Defense Ministry says Ukraine has until 5am on March 21 to surrender the besieged city of Mariupol, adding it'll let residents and troops who lay down arms leave. Anyone left behind "with the bandits" will "face a military tribunal.""
Worth noting that Russia has been consistently attacking civilian evacuations, and has on multiple occasions over the past 8 years offered Ukrainian soldiers safe passage out providing they gave up their arms, then proceeded to slaughter them.
If you want a lowdown on what Russian military tribunals are like, the following article is good: https://www.rferl.org/a/the-executioners-of-slovyansk/30743132.html
"The Russia-backed gunmen came and hauled away Oleksiy Pichko on the afternoon of June 17, 2014, three days after he allegedly broke into a neighbor’s home in a rundown district on the outskirts of Slovyansk, in eastern Ukraine, and stole two shirts and a pair of pants.
The 30-year-old Pichko, a civilian, was taken to a gloomy two-story building surrounded by armed guards and barricades. He was interrogated, forced to write a confession, and summarily shot to death by a firing squad of Russia-backed separatists who had seized control of the city. His executioners discarded his body on a battlefield of the war raging between them and Ukrainian forces, where it could be blown to bits by exploding artillery shells, according to family members and friends who sought out his whereabouts when he was taken and looked for his body after learning of his death."
And it only gets grimmer from there...
None of this Russia nonsense, it’ll always be Muscovy to me.
My point is that there are still PLENTY of questions re: his motivation let alone his sincerity.
And integrity? As they say in Boston, Mass - forgetaboutit!
One of the disadvantages of being a democracy is many of the countries with which we want to do business aren't. Now, you may choose to make a party political point out of this (or you may not) and people scoffed at the notion of an "ethical" foreign policy 25 years ago.
The problem is we can't control where the oil is - if we don't get it from Russia, the big players remain Saudi Arabia and the UAE and you can ask some pretty searching questions about both countries and the behaviour of their rulers (and in a democracy, we can and should) but your options are simple - either sit in the dark or grab your long spoon.
There's a bigger point about our dependence on oil which, ever since the Yom Kippur War when oil prices quadrupled without OPEC losing a single customer, has lurked in the battleground but about which we've done precious little. Yes, our cars are much cleaner and more fuel efficient but how many are there now compared with 1974? The fact remains our economy and indeed our very way of life is hyper sensitive to the availability and price of resources (not just oil) which are often in the hands of countries where, to put it mildly, the rulers don't seem to have the personal and official checks and balances our system (despite the antics of the current Government) still possesses.
However, when under stress, or as is likely with Boris burning the midnight oil, it is most likely his increased weight is by over snacking between meals
Germany to this day is sustaining Putin's war
We see @Big_G_NorthWales also trying to play up the notion Labour is weak on energy independence and to be fair Reeves wasn't brilliant today. I've commented on this on my previous but in a way we have been hostages to countries with less than immaculate Governmental systems and human rights records for decades - we propped them up in the Cold War because they were "our kind of bastards" (so to speak).
I suspect few will care where their litre of unleaded or diesel comes from as long as it doesn't cost too much and Saudi Aramco's decision to boost production will probably have the desired effect on oil prices tomorrow.
The current conflict has illuminated those instances where the long spoon is necessary - whether it's football clubs taking money from Russian oligarchs or Saudi royalty or horse racing being dependent on the UAE royal family - but it's the reality of the world in which we live and arguably always has been.
Put simply, money buys power but so too does resource control whether it's oil for our cars or rare metals for our mobile phones and computers.
There's a long list of European politicians who are known to have been paid by the Russians as a reward for serving their interests on oil and gas contracts. Those are the people you should be apoplectic about.
He was a few months away from getting Nord Stream 2 online. Which would have meant that Putin could have shut off gas to Eastern Europe (selectively) without affecting the big money earner in Western Europe.
And yet here we are: it turns out that there are more things on heaven & earth than are thought of in Putin’s philosophy, one of which is that comedians & actors can also be effective, personally brave leaders in wartime who inspire people by their example.
I am away for 3 days next week on a birthday break. God knows what I'll come back to after that.
One of his Belted Galloways giving me the side eye below.
Is Germany an appeaser, collaborator or both?
In summary: we use less oil than we used to. Albeit not a lot less.
While foreign aid must have played a part, there must be a groups of professionals in the Ukrainian military who created this. The books they write on this will be fascinating.
This is a fascinating read - the fall in use of oil in petrol vehicles off set by the rise in the number of diesel vehicles from 2001 to 2018 (basically a tripling).
Someone will correct me (hopefully, indeed certainly as it's PB) but diesel is one of the main concerns around pollution in cities via exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles.
But that shouldn't surprise you: countries will tend to buy energy from the nearest source, because transport is expensive.
And I'm against ANY politicos getting bribed by foreign tyrants. Most especially those in MY country, America.
So does ill-gotten & -give largess from Putin & Co. to UK politicos, bother you LESS?
There might have been several billion of Russian money spent in London but the effects of that were more likely negative for the Conservative party.
Not Lothians and the Borders.
The local gmt unit is Scottish Borders (no The).
‘Binbag full of custard’ has a certain something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Borders
The discovery that the Californians were right and that particulates were a huge problem led, of course, to the great Emissions Cheating scandal. Which was caused by the squeeze on emissions and efficiency demanded from diesel vehicles.
The point remains a lot of people remain essentially dependent on the availability of petrol or diesel whether it's for a car or machinery in their business or whatever and that dependency leaves us susceptible to supply interruptions and price changes just as we were in 1973.
It's not just oil - there are a number of other key resources on which we are absurdly dependent - rare metals such as iridium for example and others which are key components in all our electronics and semi-conductors.
I expect much closer defence and security cooperation with the EU but time to be truthful
On a practical notes, a number of advances in technology (a part of the ongoing electronics and materials revolutions) has made trans-oceanic power cables perfectly possible. A power connector from the UK to Morocco, for example, is perfectly feasible.
I don't like the use of the definite article with Ukraine even if used in some languages like German.
What you are doing is conflating this with party donations including from Ukrainian dissidents who clearly had no love for Putin, and tarring anyone vaguely Russian with the Kremlin brush.
Ukraine's social media is out of this world in its boldness.
https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1505623463687512067?s=21
It's improving London's air particularly through reductions in Nitrogen dioxide emissions. The big problem now is PM 2.5 and getting that reduced.
This is why the Emissions Scandal happened - the tightening of particulate emissions standards on one side and the requirements to increase efficiency (reduced CO2) on the other made it impossible to build a diesel engine for the price required.
LOL
he's trolling them now...
Just because Russia isn't exactly getting their monies worth currently, doesn't mean they didn't do it. I mean clearly they did.
New Thread