Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Rubbish. Kia are great quality now. Their down market days are history a decade or more ago. My Kia eNiro is the best quality car that I have ever had, and I have had quite a few from all over the world over the years.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Rubbish. Kia are great quality now. Their down market days are history a decade or more ago. My Kia eNiro is the best quality car that I have ever had, and I have had quite a few from all over the world over the years.
Which is what I said. I think its unfair reputation these days. Bit like those that still think Skoda's are total garbage, they aren't, but struggle somewhat with an image problem among those who want to be seen in a "cool" car. I am sure Skoda do great with older folk who don't care about the cool factor, rather looking at value for money.
But its definitely true that Mini's and Fiat 500s have since their introductions been a fashion statement for wealthier people who want a city car, both here and around the world. They have been incredibly successful playing off that image.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Yesterday people wanted to set fire to my Renault, now my Kia is being slagged off. What is wrong with Kias? Got a little Kia Picanto. 7 year warranty, now 9 years old. Nothing gone wrong with it. 13 year old Renault now falling to bits but ok till then.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Yesterday people wanted to set fire to my Renault, now my Kia is being slagged off. What is wrong with Kias? Got a little Kia Picanto. 7 year warranty, now 9 years old. Nothing gone wrong with it. 13 year old Renault now falling to bits but ok till then.
FFS, I am not dunking on Kias. I said I think its unfair, but I was pointing to the fact that there is still among significant number of people "image" about what car they buy. It isn't about how good they are.
The reality is these days most car brands are owned by the same small number of mega-corps who share the tech and so your Skoda is really just a VW with tech from 2-3 years ago.
What I am saying is people with Sunak's money can afford any car, and image comes into it. If he owns a mini, I can see that, there has always been a fashionable element to that brand.
It is worth noting - because it has NOT been picked up by PB worthies, that the Chancellor has left himself plenty of room for tax giveaways closer to an election.
He is projected to stay well within his own fiscal rules.
So the idea that “there is no more money”, is bunk.
I disagree Walks. He has left himself money for a budget later in the year, and to help with next years recession. It’s not certain there will be any left for pre election giveaways.
Great question to the Chancellor. You say you can't predict what will happen to energy bills in the next six months but you're able to promise an income tax cut in two years' time? https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Does he not need a cushion to see over the steering wheel like my mum?
It is worth noting - because it has NOT been picked up by PB worthies, that the Chancellor has left himself plenty of room for tax giveaways closer to an election.
He is projected to stay well within his own fiscal rules.
So the idea that “there is no more money”, is bunk.
I disagree Walks. He has left himself money for a budget later in the year, and to help with next years recession. It’s not certain there will be any left for pre election giveaways.
I can't see how he holds his current line on benefits. The tales of destitution will be pouring in on nightly news soon.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Does he not need a cushion to see over the steering wheel like my mum?
He certainly can't have the proper racing seats.....
Great question to the Chancellor. You say you can't predict what will happen to energy bills in the next six months but you're able to promise an income tax cut in two years' time? https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Sorry - it was a heightism joke based on part of a thread yesterday about Rishi being somewhat tiny.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
Didn’t he make good money (30 odd million iirc) off his own bat from his work. It’s not quite what he’s married into but I think he could be described as self-made.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Sorry - it was a heightism joke based on part of a thread yesterday about Rishi being somewhat tiny.
I see...I have no idea what actual cars he drives, but the reason I believed you when you said it, is they are absolutely the type of car people in his position definitely own for that weekday city car.
A significant poll as it would mean the Conservatives would still win most seats in a hung parliament after the boundary changes.
However it would also mean the SNP would once again have the balance of power, so Starmer would likely have to allow indyref2 to become PM. Whereas other recent polls had Labour winning most seats, in which case Starmer could lead a minority government and ignore the SNP
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Sorry - it was a heightism joke based on part of a thread yesterday about Rishi being somewhat tiny.
I see...I have no idea what actual cars he drives, but the reason I believed you when you said it, is they are absolutely the type of car people in his position definitely own for that weekday city car.
Or the car you drive to the pub as you don’t mind leaving it there overnight when you break your promise to only have one drink…..
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Sorry - it was a heightism joke based on part of a thread yesterday about Rishi being somewhat tiny.
I see...I have no idea what actual cars he drives, but the reason I believed you when you said it, is they are absolutely the type of car people in his position definitely own for that weekday city car.
Or the car you drive to the pub as you don’t mind leaving it there overnight when you break your promise to only have one drink…..
Just make sure you don't also leave your kids there....
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Does he not need a cushion to see over the steering wheel like my mum?
In a Mini? Exactly how short is your mum..
I'm asking this as someone whose car of choice for the past 12 years has been a Mini....
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
Disgraced ex-SNP minister Derek Mackay named by Nicola Sturgeon when she was asked who signed off an ill-fated public ferry deal against expert advice. 2015 contract is now at least £143m over budget and no ferries have been delivered
What a curious graph. The lowest earners' income went up 8.5% last year, to fall 6% this year? Basically everyone is up across the two years put together?
What a curious graph. The lowest earners' income went up 8.5% last year, to fall 6% this year? Basically everyone is up across the two years put together?
Temporary Universal credit COVID uplift and now its removal has to be a factor?
Good news right...of course not says Mrs Glass always empty....
I suspect current wave will peak next week - helped greatly by school term finishing & nicer weather. but still a few million more people infected, 1000s more admissions and 10,000s more long covid cases to show for it. But what level will the plateau be at? & when's next one?
Not a lot in the news about long covid and I'm not totally sure why. Its clearly real, but will be different for different people. Those with serious organ damage may well never recover fully, but I'm not convinced that they are the majority. I think for most people the a long covid of symptoms lasting a few months will probably fully resolve, as happened to a colleagues wife who was surprised to still be struggling for 5 weeks, but then was back to normal. I'd like to see serious analysis of the problem (not self reporting) to get a fuller understanding. I'd also like to know if having 99% of adults with antibodies reduces the incidence of long covid, as I would expect.
The medical community at large absolutely hates long term chronic conditions and talking about them which I think explains the lack of serious study of Long Covid.
The normal response is to pretend that people complaining of long term illness are malingerers who are making it up to try and skive off.
You just have to look how the medical community treats people who have the the broad range of things that get lumped under Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for evidence of this.
If anything, Long Covid has given them a nudge in the direction of taking a serious look at such conditions. The reason they hate them, to be fair, is that they're complex and poorly understood. Medics tend not to like admitting they're in the dark like the rest of us.
But even with enthusiastic support for research, it will be a very long haul understanding such conditions.
I was initially optimistic that they were going to take a serious look but it seems like they have rapidly swung back to the old favourites of CBT and GET.
It just shows some of the absolutely mental levels of inertia in the public health space. We are still seeing new documents put out, in the space year 2022, two years into this damn pandemic saying that Covid is spread via droplets and surface contact!
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
Laurence Freedman has a long read on this and the TLDR is:
Ukraine won’t given in - it’s down to Russia to concede, and in turn it boils down to Putin’s personal motivations. Perhaps the West needs to give Putin a personal assurance.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
What a curious graph. The lowest earners' income went up 8.5% last year, to fall 6% this year? Basically everyone is up across the two years put together?
unwinding of furlough/Covid shock Would be better to see the previous two years in there for context.
You mean a compositional effect? This should be less prone to that.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
Laurence Freedman has a long read on this and the TLDR is:
Ukraine won’t given in - it’s down to Russia to concede, and in turn it boils down to Putin’s personal motivations. Perhaps the West needs to give Putin a personal assurance.
Agreed; no one has a clue, but Ukraine isn't giving in unless there's a huge reverse in favour of Russia - and even then probably not.
Interesting news that the US government now officially considers Russia guilty of war crimes based on large amounts of evidence. That severely limits any room for them to help negotiate concessions to give Putin a way out.
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
A significant poll as it would mean the Conservatives would still win most seats in a hung parliament after the boundary changes.
However it would also mean the SNP would once again have the balance of power, so Starmer would likely have to allow indyref2 to become PM. Whereas other recent polls had Labour winning most seats, in which case Starmer could lead a minority government and ignore the SNP
Probably best you vote Labour then eh?
No, I will still vote Tory and hope we get enough for a majority or to stay in power with the DUP.
If Labour get in power and need the SNP and have to allow an indyref2 that will be their problem principally and for Labour to then win it.
The more people vote Tory the less there is any chance of the SNP as Kingmakers
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Does he not need a cushion to see over the steering wheel like my mum?
In a Mini? Exactly how short is your mum..
I'm asking this as someone whose car of choice for the past 12 years has been a Mini....
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
Thanks. It was the final paragraph I was thinking of - especially if Putin starts to think of all Ukrainians as being the enemy.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
That plus his father in law being a billionaire means he has a house in Kensington, a mansion in North Yorksire and a beach side apartment in California as well as No 11 in Westminster and Dorneywood in Bucks he gets as Chancellor.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
According to wikipedia, he only did 3 years at Goldman, then left and became a partner at The Children's Investment Fund Management by 2006, before then moving to Theleme Partners. And also director of investment firm Catamaran Ventures.
So looks like he was "partner" level and above for about 8 years.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
Yeah, the thing that the Russian Army is clearly lacking is sufficient troops who can actually attack. They threw away scads of them on their ridiculous heli-assaults on airports and the like. Russia Could chuck another 100k troops in there but if none of them can actually advance under fire (and ahve the logistics to support them as you say) then the best they can do is stand around in Kherson and get shouted at by locals.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
I thought it took it entirely seriously. And what you say about the symbol is a mischaracterisation of how it was reported, IMO. They certainly didn't claim that 'nobody thinks it dodgy' - they reported that claim with what seemed to me appropriate scepticism.
Does anyone have a link to the detailed information for the new opinion poll?
Educated guess - mid term, up to their eyebrows in issues and complaints, but Tories still stuffing Labour in the midlands. Unless that changes, no Primeminister Starmer.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
That would be my hope. The Russian army's logistics systems appear to be far from suitable for purpose. The question is whether they can improve things given the material they have already lost. Perhaps if they get the rail lines up and running...
Potentially losing one ship today won't have helped.
Disgraced ex-SNP minister Derek Mackay named by Nicola Sturgeon when she was asked who signed off an ill-fated public ferry deal against expert advice. 2015 contract is now at least £143m over budget and no ferries have been delivered
Alex Salmond personally intervened to help save the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow days before the 2014 indy vote - persuading tycoon and adviser Jim McColl to take it over.
I make that that he was alleged to have signed it off in 2015. Or as Audit Scotland puts it (same link):
in October 2015, agency Transport Scotland - which Mackay was in charge of - “informed CMAL that following due consideration, Scottish ministers were aware of the risks but were content to proceed to contract award”
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
Will they need to if there isn't anything left to fire them at? It is a lot cheaper, quicker and easier to make an anti-tank weapon than a new tank.
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
I don't think, with respect to Ukraine conceding is that they should be prepared (if they appear to be 'winning' which I think they are) to accept anything less than acknowledge the Crimean loss. Any Western pressure should be called out for what it is. Greed on the part of the West (Germany in particular).
Else what sort of signal does it send out? Nuclear armed states can invade a non-nuclear neighbour and after a month of sanctions, the nuclear armed state can force land to be ceded, money to be paid or whatever they want because no one can be bothered with sanctions anymore.
It would be a straight signal to China to invade Taiwan. It would be a straight signal to Russia itself to puppet the 'stans' whilst waiting a bit before coming back to nibble something from Finland or have another go at Ukraine.
Ukraine, if put under pressure by the West to compromise, should say, "Fine, they can have the lot then. See how you like having Russia right up against Poland, Romania and Moldova again."
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
Did anybody actually think Rishi Sunak drove a Kia Rio...come on people....
He drives a Mini…..
Is not a Kia Rio....Mini have since their introduction been a bit of a fashion thing (Fiat 500s as well) particularly among wealthier people who have a "city car". I know a load of people who own one for that reason. Kia Rio's, even the tightest of people I know with money, nope, rather have a total banger than a Kia (which is probably a bit unfair on quality of Kia these days).
Yesterday people wanted to set fire to my Renault, now my Kia is being slagged off. What is wrong with Kias? Got a little Kia Picanto. 7 year warranty, now 9 years old. Nothing gone wrong with it. 13 year old Renault now falling to bits but ok till then.
FFS, I am not dunking on Kias. I said I think its unfair, but I was pointing to the fact that there is still among significant number of people "image" about what car they buy. It isn't about how good they are.
The reality is these days most car brands are owned by the same small number of mega-corps who share the tech and so your Skoda is really just a VW with tech from 2-3 years ago.
What I am saying is people with Sunak's money can afford any car, and image comes into it. If he owns a mini, I can see that, there has always been a fashionable element to that brand.
It was only a joke. A bit of merriment at the fact that both brands I own got a hit by chance in successive days.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
CW could probably be as effective in Mariupol as they were in Aleppo - alarmingly so. That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
Russian forces are no longer just stalled outside the capital of Kyiv, it appears they're on their back foot, digging in to what looks like a defensive posture:
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
That would be my hope. The Russian army's logistics systems appear to be far from suitable for purpose. The question is whether they can improve things given the material they have already lost. Perhaps if they get the rail lines up and running...
The Russian army has 25,000 dedicated railway troops whose job it is to build, repair and defend railway lines. So if they can't get the rail lines functioning then a few (more) generals deserve to get wolf tickets.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
There was someone on the radio suggesting that a plausible NATO response to use of chemical weapons would be a targeted strike against the specific units that were responsible for the use of chemical weapons.
Whether Russia responds to that with dozens of cruise missiles into Poland, etc, I don't know.
Its all usual tw@tter nonsense. Remember all the same horseshit during the G7 in Cornwall. Boris was supposed to be totally sidelined by the world, especially by Biden, when in fact him and Biden were quietly concocting a plan with the Australians to shaft the French over subs.
The reality is a lot behind the scenes grown-ups for each country do loads of leg work. That's really the important thing. All the who in what spot, who shook somebodies elses hand for longest, is just chest beating nonsense.
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
Sweden just announced they're sending another 5-6k, as did we. Germany claims to have run out. Even at 600 a week they'll last long enough to take out a huge amount if Russian kit. The go to site has nearly 1800 confirmed Russian equipment losses, with the bulk of that wheeled and tracked vehicles.
I think I have a very good question to start up a threadette.
One month in, Russia stalled and now in reverse, losses so great and symbolic now it’s putting survival of Putin regime into question, how do we now see this war ending? What is the likely Endgame?
Is this the peak moment for Ukraine to beat Russia up in negotiations, or can their position get stronger still in the coming weeks?
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The Javelin production line exists but all the companies that go into feeding it are waiting for the funding to be guaranteed in place before they commit to ramping it up.
There seems to be some institutional inertia in America as the funding has been budgeted but no contracts have been signed yet.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
CW could probably be as effective in Mariupol as they were in Aleppo - alarmingly so. That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
There was a long discussion over at AH.com around chemical weapons. It seemed to come to the conclusion that CW aren't much use against military targets and even pointed out in WWI when the Canadians were gassed early on in the war, the lack of defence against gas wasn't a game changer for the battle.
Put simply, CW aren't any good at defeating military formations. What they ARE good for is killing defenceless civilians. THIS might force an opponent to the table, but it'll be because you are literally engaged in state sanctioned murder of women and children.
I'd like to hope we wouldn't accept the terrible scenes that would come out should Russia decide to go down that very evil path.
Ridiculous, Maldon voted 72% Tory in 2019 and is one of the safest Tory seats in the country
It would be lost on a North Shropshire swing.
Not on any other by election swing since 2019 though, including Chesham and Amersham (North Shropshire was exceptional circumstances due to Patterson)
True - but it's not ridiculous to base assessment of risk on the most recent by-election in a Conservative held seat (ignoring Southend, which wasn't contested by any serious opponents).
I'd also not overstate the direct Patterson effect. His career plainly ended badly, but he was not a personally unpopular man in his constituency. The narrative of the campaign was more about Partygate.
Look, Maldon being very "safe" is a double edged sword - it improves the chances of a hold but also raises the stakes. If there was a by-election in, say, Bridgend, and the Tories lost then that's disappointing for them but they say "marginal seat, mid-term, these things happen". But lose in Maldon (as in North Shropshire) and that puts the fear of God into Tory MPs with a good five figure majority, and is much more problematic for the PM. He could survive losing a Bridgend... but a Maldon would be curtains.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
CW could probably be as effective in Mariupol as they were in Aleppo - alarmingly so. That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
There was a long discussion over at AH.com around chemical weapons. It seemed to come to the conclusion that CW aren't much use against military targets and even pointed out in WWI when the Canadians were gassed early on in the war, the lack of defence against gas wasn't a game changer for the battle.
Put simply, CW aren't any good at defeating military formations. What they ARE good for is killing defenceless civilians. THIS might force an opponent to the table, but it'll be because you are literally engaged in state sanctioned murder of women and children.
I'd like to hope we wouldn't accept the terrible scenes that would come out should Russia decide to go down that very evil path.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
Ben Wallace was caught out on camera with the Russian prank saying UK available stocks were running low. Despite this being Russian propaganda, the government didn't deny this.
Now Ben Wallace might have been wrong.
Or maybe the 6000 aren't coming anytime soon, but I am not sure the UK government would make such a dodgy commitment in such a crucial time (this isn't a matter of trying to play fast and loose with some budget figures).
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
CW could probably be as effective in Mariupol as they were in Aleppo - alarmingly so. That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
There was a long discussion over at AH.com around chemical weapons. It seemed to come to the conclusion that CW aren't much use against military targets and even pointed out in WWI when the Canadians were gassed early on in the war, the lack of defence against gas wasn't a game changer for the battle.
Put simply, CW aren't any good at defeating military formations. What they ARE good for is killing defenceless civilians. THIS might force an opponent to the table, but it'll be because you are literally engaged in state sanctioned murder of women and children.
I'd like to hope we wouldn't accept the terrible scenes that would come out should Russia decide to go down that very evil path.
There seems to be an agreement then. The likely outcome of another couple of weeks of stalemate is Putin tempted to pump chlorine into the cities which won’t surrender 😟
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
Caught up with the overnight thread, which seemed to morph from my merely comparing the cities of Nottingham and Derby (and the counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire) into open season from various PB Bumpkins to pile in on London and cities in general.
I mean, I was with you all on some of the arguments – I too love a bit of countryside, am an avid hiker and mountain biker and live very near the rural edge of London. I too admire Hampshire, and the gorgeous Peak District, and the Lakes, and the handsome city of Nottingham. Agreed.
But when one PBer claimed his nirvana was "suburban Leicester", well ... the threadette lost all sense of reality at that stage. I mean, the point of satire is that it has to be at least vaguely plausible.
Suburban Leicester and suburban north-west London aren't much different to each other.
Yes, they are, because one of them is part of the greatest city in the world, and commands rapid access to all its treasures. And the other is Leicester.
Well I take your point. Give me a choice between a house in Oadby or a house in Pinner and I'd probably choose the latter. I can see the argument for Leicester though. Most importantly - and I don't know who it was who claimed suburban Leicester as his personal nirvana (Foxy?) - but if that's where home is, there is something very powerful about that which overrides any objective criteria. You know where you're at home. It'll be a view which suddenly reveals itself or a road sign you pass which may say something neutral like 'Cheshire' but in your head says something like 'welcome home' while a brass band plays something upbeat and sentimental in the background. So if for you your terroir is Leciestershire, then absolutely I can see why Oadby would be your nirvana.
But there is also a more prosaic reason why Oadby might beat Pinner: which is that you can live in a pretty spacious and comfortable house in Oadby for the price of a small flat in Pinner. In reality, that's what the choice is: would you rather have a small flat in Pinner or a large house in Oadby; or a house in Pinner or a mansion in Oadby? Or equivalently sized houses in each but not have to work any more in Oadby? On that basis, suburban Leicester is starting to look a lot more attractive.
So glad you use that word terroir. It is something I believe in very strongly when I think of England and more specifically of those parts of England I have chosen to live. That combination of geography, climate, soil, tradition, myth and natural environment which all combine to make a place so much more than just a place to live.
Britain has 159 “national character areas”.
Never heard of those before. I do prefer the idea of Terroir though as it makes it a deeply personal thing rather than something imposed from above.
If you are as tremendously geeky as I am (highly likely, as you are on PB), I urge you to find a map of Charles Phythian-Adams’s “Cultural Provinces of England” from his obscure book “Societies, Culture and Kinship”.
To me it explains everything about how England “divides” including much vexed questions about where the Midlands begin and end.
Its all usual tw@tter nonsense. Remember all the same horseshit during the G7 in Cornwall. Boris was supposed to be totally sidelined by the world, especially by Biden, when in fact him and Biden were quietly concocting a plan with the Australians to shaft the French over subs.
The reality is a lot behind the scenes grown-ups for each country do loads of leg work. That's really the important thing. All the who in what spot, who shook somebodies elses hand for longest, is just chest beating nonsense.
I think one important issue is that there is a signifcant overlap with the Brussels Media, and the EU desperately needs a critical media, not a servile one, to critique their errors.
Instead they just get (pardon me) ars*licking, and amateur PR operatives.
If it is going to be a worthwhile thing, it has to get a hell of a lot better.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
Comments
However, you can't defy gravity for ever.
The car, of course, being a borrowed Kia.
But its definitely true that Mini's and Fiat 500s have since their introductions been a fashion statement for wealthier people who want a city car, both here and around the world. They have been incredibly successful playing off that image.
The reality is these days most car brands are owned by the same small number of mega-corps who share the tech and so your Skoda is really just a VW with tech from 2-3 years ago.
What I am saying is people with Sunak's money can afford any car, and image comes into it. If he owns a mini, I can see that, there has always been a fashionable element to that brand.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
@IanDunt
·
1h
I'm old enough to remember when Budgets took 48 hours to unravel.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt
Ouch!
Wasn’t even the Chancellor’s car.
Treasury now admitting it belongs to a Sainsbury’s employee.
Sometimes a picture does paint 1,000 grim words. https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1506979361097981965/photo/1
Does it have to end in negotiated ceasefire and Ukraine concessions? Could Russia have to slink away like from Afghanistan in military defeat?
My little threadette lives on, forlorn for at least one answer.
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
However it would also mean the SNP would once again have the balance of power, so Starmer would likely have to allow indyref2 to become PM. Whereas other recent polls had Labour winning most seats, in which case Starmer could lead a minority government and ignore the SNP
https://samf.substack.com/p/losing-wars-and-saving-face?r=15i4j0&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I'm asking this as someone whose car of choice for the past 12 years has been a Mini....
What realistically is going to happen in Ukraine in coming weeks?
OK. I'll have a go.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war.
- Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
Disgraced ex-SNP minister Derek Mackay named by Nicola Sturgeon when she was asked who signed off an ill-fated public ferry deal against expert advice. 2015 contract is now at least £143m over budget and no ferries have been delivered
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1506986911621132292
It just shows some of the absolutely mental levels of inertia in the public health space. We are still seeing new documents put out, in the space year 2022, two years into this damn pandemic saying that Covid is spread via droplets and surface contact!
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
Nobody knows.
Laurence Freedman has a long read on this and the TLDR is:
Ukraine won’t given in - it’s down to Russia to concede, and in turn it boils down to Putin’s personal motivations. Perhaps the West needs to give Putin a personal assurance.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1506988213637890048
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1506967115718397955?t=aKCQIQItnK8uXBRA0Rg0TQ&s=19
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
The Chancellor goes about in an armoured Jag. As you would expect.
Compared with the silly hoodie photos, it's a standard political photo, no?
(He better have paid for the fuel...)
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
Interesting news that the US government now officially considers Russia guilty of war crimes based on large amounts of evidence.
That severely limits any room for them to help negotiate concessions to give Putin a way out.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war.
- Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The weapons are going to dry up soon as the absolutely prolifligate expenditure of them by Ukrainians is going to exhaust the donors' stocks. They are firing off 600 Javelin rounds/week. Even the might of the US can't sustain that.
If Labour get in power and need the SNP and have to allow an indyref2 that will be their problem principally and for Labour to then win it.
The more people vote Tory the less there is any chance of the SNP as Kingmakers
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways:
- in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or
- to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
He is now 5 properties Rishi
So looks like he was "partner" level and above for about 8 years.
God knows what will happen if he enters the 2024 campaign behind in the polls.
And what you say about the symbol is a mischaracterisation of how it was reported, IMO. They certainly didn't claim that 'nobody thinks it dodgy' - they reported that claim with what seemed to me appropriate scepticism.
Potentially losing one ship today won't have helped.
According to the Scottish Sun:
Alex Salmond personally intervened to help save the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow days before the 2014 indy vote - persuading tycoon and adviser Jim McColl to take it over.
And this week, spending watchdogs Audit Scotland told how the following year, the SNP Government overruled bosses of public-owned ferries operator CalMac to award a major ships contract to Ferguson.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/8614026/nicola-sturgeon-derek-mackay-ferry-deal/
I make that that he was alleged to have signed it off in 2015. Or as Audit Scotland puts it (same link):
in October 2015, agency Transport Scotland - which Mackay was in charge of - “informed CMAL that following due consideration, Scottish ministers were aware of the risks but were content to proceed to contract award”
He was Transport Minister - a Junior position.
More enquiring to be done here.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war.
- Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
I don't think, with respect to Ukraine conceding is that they should be prepared (if they appear to be 'winning' which I think they are) to accept anything less than acknowledge the Crimean loss.
Any Western pressure should be called out for what it is. Greed on the part of the West (Germany in particular).
Else what sort of signal does it send out? Nuclear armed states can invade a non-nuclear neighbour and after a month of sanctions, the nuclear armed state can force land to be ceded, money to be paid or whatever they want because no one can be bothered with sanctions anymore.
It would be a straight signal to China to invade Taiwan. It would be a straight signal to Russia itself to puppet the 'stans' whilst waiting a bit before coming back to nibble something from Finland or have another go at Ukraine.
Ukraine, if put under pressure by the West to compromise, should say, "Fine, they can have the lot then. See how you like having Russia right up against Poland, Romania and Moldova again."
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1506931087981051910
Russian forces are no longer just stalled outside the capital of Kyiv, it appears they're on their back foot, digging in to what looks like a defensive posture:
https://www.npr.org/live-updates/ukraine-russia-troops-month-03-24-2022#where-things-stand-a-month-into-the-war-according-to-the-pentagon
Here's a longer video of Boris at the NATO meeting, you can see how selective the negative clip being circulated is. Worth sharing widely.
https://twitter.com/francessmith/status/1506977806500220928
Whether Russia responds to that with dozens of cruise missiles into Poland, etc, I don't know.
The reality is a lot behind the scenes grown-ups for each country do loads of leg work. That's really the important thing. All the who in what spot, who shook somebodies elses hand for longest, is just chest beating nonsense.
Sweden just announced they're sending another 5-6k, as did we. Germany claims to have run out.
Even at 600 a week they'll last long enough to take out a huge amount if Russian kit. The go to site has nearly 1800 confirmed Russian equipment losses, with the bulk of that wheeled and tracked vehicles.
The Javelin production line exists but all the companies that go into feeding it are waiting for the funding to be guaranteed in place before they commit to ramping it up.
There seems to be some institutional inertia in America as the funding has been budgeted but no contracts have been signed yet.
Put simply, CW aren't any good at defeating military formations.
What they ARE good for is killing defenceless civilians. THIS might force an opponent to the table, but it'll be because you are literally engaged in state sanctioned murder of women and children.
I'd like to hope we wouldn't accept the terrible scenes that would come out should Russia decide to go down that very evil path.
I'd also not overstate the direct Patterson effect. His career plainly ended badly, but he was not a personally unpopular man in his constituency. The narrative of the campaign was more about Partygate.
Look, Maldon being very "safe" is a double edged sword - it improves the chances of a hold but also raises the stakes. If there was a by-election in, say, Bridgend, and the Tories lost then that's disappointing for them but they say "marginal seat, mid-term, these things happen". But lose in Maldon (as in North Shropshire) and that puts the fear of God into Tory MPs with a good five figure majority, and is much more problematic for the PM. He could survive losing a Bridgend... but a Maldon would be curtains.
Now Ben Wallace might have been wrong.
Or maybe the 6000 aren't coming anytime soon, but I am not sure the UK government would make such a dodgy commitment in such a crucial time (this isn't a matter of trying to play fast and loose with some budget figures).
Instead they just get (pardon me) ars*licking, and amateur PR operatives.
If it is going to be a worthwhile thing, it has to get a hell of a lot better.