And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from @Keir_Starmer: ‘Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir.’
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
It's a famously insoluble issue, a discussion going back thousands of years. Is an apple an apple because we agree to call it one, or does 'apple' stand for every item which participates in a nature called 'appleness' and so its an apple because of its nature, not its name and would still be an apple if you called it a cat.
Looks like this problem (universals) which is usually regarded as insoluble but unimportant is coming back to life.
Plato's Theory of Forms.
...is an interesting and well known but implausible contribution to the wider problem of universals. Basically it's a theory about the warehouse which stocks the template of an apple, etc.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
Breaking: Russia is beginning to withdraw some forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, in what the US assesses is a “major” strategy shift, two senior US officials tell me. US is already observing movements underway of Russian Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1508787161021227012
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Yes, that's my view. I still don't support us (the UK) spending large sums on nuclear deterrence though. I don't see how what we get for that is in practice worth the cost.
I think that's because now we don't see ourselves ever being Ukraine, and a judgement that our place at the table in other circumstances is not really dependent on our possession of NW.
Without speaking to the second part, whether the first part is chicken->egg or egg->chicken is up for debate.
"Angela Rayner says it is 'unacceptable' to ask a trans woman if they have a penis but you can ask trans men if they're pregnant - as she warns that gender row will 'damage people'"
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
We saw after the Russian bond default of 1998 that investors have short memories.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
China’s best way out from here, is going to be to bite the national pride bullet and buy several hundred million Western vaccines ASAP.
It's a famously insoluble issue, a discussion going back thousands of years. Is an apple an apple because we agree to call it one, or does 'apple' stand for every item which participates in a nature called 'appleness' and so its an apple because of its nature, not its name and would still be an apple if you called it a cat.
Looks like this problem (universals) which is usually regarded as insoluble but unimportant is coming back to life.
Plato's Theory of Forms.
Runs straight into the third man problem. Apples are all apples because they share in the form of the Apple. so an apple is like the Apple. We can only explain this likeness by positing an Apple1 in whose form the Apple and all apples share. But then to explain what Apple1, the Apple and all apples have in common we need an Apple2...
Plato himself pointed this out in the Parmenides but didn't come up with a solution
"Angela Rayner says it is 'unacceptable' to ask a trans woman if they have a penis but you can ask trans men if they're pregnant - as she warns that gender row will 'damage people'"
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
China’s best way out from here, is going to be to bite the national pride bullet and buy several hundred million Western vaccines ASAP.
Yep.
Unfortunately, that's a very bitter pill for the government to swallow. Under previous administrations, I reckon they'd have done it. Under Xi, it seems very unlikely.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
China’s best way out from here, is going to be to bite the national pride bullet and buy several hundred million Western vaccines ASAP.
The bigger problem is the low vaccination rates in the elderly - buying vaccines isn't going to help much with that. Sinopharm is actually not bad compared to Pfizer, after a third shot, but the proportion of the population that have had that is quite small.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
It is very surprising, given the moves to a new referendum. Can’t argue there isn’t a story in them, either way.
Breaking: Russia is beginning to withdraw some forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, in what the US assesses is a “major” strategy shift, two senior US officials tell me. US is already observing movements underway of Russian Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1508787161021227012
I hope Ukrainian forces are harrying them until the exit door and taking out as much as they can.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Thanks. I am pondering whether to buy the book. Do you have a view?
The reason I am hesitant is that there is nothing new in analyzing politico-military-economic issues through the prism of what the other side knows and thinks. That is, after all, the very basis of both game theory and behavioural economics. So does this book really add a new perspective on MAD?
I ask, because with my involvement with assessing societal risks of synthetic biology, I have come across far too many people who, new to the field, keep on reinventing the wheel thinking that they have insights that we, who have been doing it for decades, do not. Time is too precious.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
Breaking: Russia is beginning to withdraw some forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, in what the US assesses is a “major” strategy shift, two senior US officials tell me. US is already observing movements underway of Russian Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1508787161021227012
I hope Ukrainian forces are harrying them until the exit door and taking out as much as they can.
Yep, forcing them to leave as much equipment and weaponary behind as possible.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
Also (I think?) third, Russian hydrocarbon reserves are largely locked up in the most godawful inaccessible locations and are therefore very expensive to extract.
Oh, and four: as anyone who has played civ will know, Russia, which is a despotism and is large in scale, sees much of the potential value which might be extracted from its fossil fuels disappear in corruption. Making it harder still to break even. (I am assuming real life operates like civ here.)
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Yes, that's my view. I still don't support us (the UK) spending large sums on nuclear deterrence though. I don't see how what we get for that is in practice worth the cost.
I think that's because now we don't see ourselves ever being Ukraine, and a judgement that our place at the table in other circumstances is not really dependent on our possession of NW.
Without speaking to the second part, whether the first part is chicken->egg or egg->chicken is up for debate.
Yes, exactly. And I don't think we're significantly more protected because of it. Our safety comes mainly from our geography and alliances and conventional forces. We're a nuclear nation as a legacy of our past major world power status. I view it a bit like I do the size and scale and tone of our Monarchy - "The Crown" - it's a hangover and no longer that massively appropriate. It's difficult for me to conceive of how Trident would make an important real difference to any important UK military or defence situation that's likely to arise in practice. But of course I'm open to hearing about such examples. I suppose there must be *some* rationale for keeping it other than symbolism.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
I mean, Chinese numbers, who believes them, eh, but according to the BBC:
"In the week prior to 24 March, there were just over 14,000 new cases in the whole of mainland China. In the UK over a similar period, there were over 610,000 new infections."
I believe that there are also a few more of them than us, roughly 20x. Does put it into perspective somewhat.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
The last two paragraphs are key here. There is going to be a huge amount of goodwill here (and money to be made) by Western countries in rebuilding the Ukraine. Potentially, it could also be a big bonanza for the arms industry, if the Ukrainians (as I guess they will) reorientate over time to use Western equipment, not Russian ones.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Are they refusing to buy western vaccines?
AFAIK, they haven't approved any for use in China. I presume all part of the Party PR offensive that they lead the world in dealing with COVID, we don't need the West's vaccines, our great Chinese scientists have produced working vaccines.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
It is very surprising, given the moves to a new referendum. Can’t argue there isn’t a story in them, either way.
It may be related to the fact that the Scons have shut up (comparatively speaking) about indyref2. For years they talked about nothing else - even Marcus Porcius Cato only said "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" at the end of whatever he was actually talking about in the Senate: "Oh, and by the way, I think that Carthage must get the Gorbals treatment".
And they were marketing themselves as the Ruth Davidson Says No to Indyref Party with 'Conservative' in gey wee (Anglice, verrrry tiny) lettering somewhere in the leaflet to conform to legalities.
Suddenly, it changed ... the local council candidate here could be a LD but for the blue colour of the leaflet rabbiting on about roundabouts and dug shite.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
China’s best way out from here, is going to be to bite the national pride bullet and buy several hundred million Western vaccines ASAP.
Yep.
Unfortunately, that's a very bitter pill for the government to swallow. Under previous administrations, I reckon they'd have done it. Under Xi, it seems very unlikely.
Vaccine-wise: We should just give them whatever we have free that they need. We'll have vaccines that'll be thrown away in 6 months. I don't much care if Mr Xing from Shanghai's life is saved against Mrs Miggins' from 44B Smithson Street.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Are they refusing to buy western vaccines?
AIUI they don't accept them as 'effective'. My son, who travels..... well, did in happier times ..... to China has had two doses of Sinopharm so that when he can go back, he can. He's also had three doses of Pfizer so he can come here/go to Australia.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
I mean, Chinese numbers, who believes them, eh, but according to the BBC:
"In the week prior to 24 March, there were just over 14,000 new cases in the whole of mainland China. In the UK over a similar period, there were over 610,000 new infections."
I believe that there are also a few more of them than us, roughly 20x. Does put it into perspective somewhat.
Nobody believes the Chinese numbers. They are more unreliable than the Russian troop losses in Ukraine.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
While some of that is accurate, there is also a lot of prediction that may not materialise and anyway it dose not stack up to a lot compated to Russia, capturing a lot of territory where millions of people live, democracy has taken a big hit. and Putin will feel and look like a winner to his people and to what to be despots around the would.
-The territory they hold is strategically significant, so outsize its actual size.
-The west was decarbonising anyway, this may slightly speed that up, but I don't think the defiance will be that significant, Germany still does not what to switch on Nuclear plants, tidal lagoons take years to build, and they can and will still sell to other people like china.
-The wests promise to rebuild Ukraine may tern out to be as half-hatred as its plan to arm Ukraine, meanwhile Russia has already invested a lot in to Crimean,
-Ukraine has 10 million displaced people may still in Ukraine and homeless, if the end of war feels like a defeat, then this might not become the great rebirth of a nation that we had been tolled to expect, but instead lots of ranker and resentment at how people are treated after the war.
-Western company's may not be quite as keen to re-enter Russia, but money is a big incentive and as French company have demonstrated, there will be people willing to take the risk if the reward is big enough. moor may be chines, but they will come.
-The Russian army has messed up a lot and lost a lot, but the thing is they can and will learn, like the Ukrainians army did after 2014, they have lost a lot of tanks, so what tanks as we see armed as impotent as we thought, they have captured NLAWs and other weapons, which they can study, they may also have learned the impotence of an NCO core, and the limitations of conscripts, the new Russian army may have less tanks and conscripts and more NCOs and coppyed NLAWs and as such will not be as week again, even if this takes 2-3 years to achieve.
_Finland and Sweeded have been talking about joining NATO for 30 years, and have a close relationship now, they may join, personally I doubt it, but so what if they do, its not that deferent form how things are now. Putin will use it in his own propaganda.
You can see the deck hatch immediately below the flag, lifted up at an angle. In heavy seas, it’s firmly shut and watertight. The deck itself is designed to quickly disperse large volumes of water. Won’t be much fun for the crew though!
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
Yes. Apart from: "And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong."
Not 100% sure they will. Certainly anecdotally people in Russia seem to be very much supporting Putin and the "SO".
Plus do the people of Britain know something went terribly wrong in Basra, for example.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
The last two paragraphs are key here. There is going to be a huge amount of goodwill here (and money to be made) by Western countries in rebuilding the Ukraine. Potentially, it could also be a big bonanza for the arms industry, if the Ukrainians (as I guess they will) reorientate over time to use Western equipment, not Russian ones.
Well, an Anglo-Swedish NLAW costing thousands has proved itself more than capable against a multi million dollar tank. And I suspect any halfway decent Western fighters (whether US, French or Swedish) would have wiped the floor with Russian aircraft.
The West will happily lend (on very easy terms) as much as Ukraine needs to rebuild its armed forces.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
Specific to gas, the single largest buyer (EU states) receive cheap piped gas, switching to LNG exports will require huge investment in LNG tech, I don't see where that money or expertise comes from. The risk premium for insuring Russian investments from expropriation must be astronomically high.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
The last two paragraphs are key here. There is going to be a huge amount of goodwill here (and money to be made) by Western countries in rebuilding the Ukraine. Potentially, it could also be a big bonanza for the arms industry, if the Ukrainians (as I guess they will) reorientate over time to use Western equipment, not Russian ones.
If you were Donbass or Crimea, faced with a referendum and the choice of being on the end of $1trn of worldwide goodwill in the next few years, or $1trn of sanctions that leave you unable to trade with more than half of the world…
I don't think they're supposed to be out in heavy seas, are they? Might cause gin to be spilled.
Long time since I sailed in a yacht, and it was rather smaller and sail-y, but my reactions are
(1) if it's going fast enough, the counter isn't going to suffer pooping from waves overtaking and breaking over it. But that projecting stern is only a small part relatively -
(2) I wondered if it is ballasted by pumping sea water into tanks. to lower the hull in harbour to bring the counter down to convenient stepping onto dinghy level?
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
Lebedev putting a shift in for his benefactor then? Good to see obligations honoured.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Are they refusing to buy western vaccines?
They have made there own mRNA vaccine which they are distributing now, I think between a 1/3 and 1/2 have now had this new vaccine, how effective and how much its a copy of western mRNA vaccines I don't know, but probably a big step up from there first vaccines.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
Everybody has lost. There is no 'winner'.
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
The last two paragraphs are key here. There is going to be a huge amount of goodwill here (and money to be made) by Western countries in rebuilding the Ukraine. Potentially, it could also be a big bonanza for the arms industry, if the Ukrainians (as I guess they will) reorientate over time to use Western equipment, not Russian ones.
If you were Donbass or Crimea, faced with a referendum and the choice of being on the end of $1trn of worldwide goodwill in the next few years, or $1trn of sanctions that leave you unable to trade with more than half of the world…
But look who's going to organise and manage the referendum!
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Are they refusing to buy western vaccines?
They have made there own mRNA vaccine which they are distributing now, I think between a 1/3 and 1/2 have now had this new vaccine, how effective and how much its a copy of western mRNA vaccines I don't know, but probably a big step up from there first vaccines.
I read that in Hong Kong 61% of people are still rejecting mRNA vaccines, going with take the Chinese one (that doesn't work). I wonder how that is going in the mainland.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
The idea that lessons will actually be learned is laughable to say the least. It's a catchphrase for politicians and civil servants who have no intention of actually making any changes.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Of course it changes the dynamics. MAD works if both sides fear a failure of the balance. If one side does not fear that failure or thinks it is a price worth paying then the dynamic ceases to exist. This is why the nuclear deterrent doesn't work with religious fanatic terrorists. If they don't fear the apocalypse, or if they welcome it as they think they will survive and a new order will follow then there is no threat to them from MAD.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
I’ve suggested before to run it along the lines of an AAIB or RAIB enquiry, with the intention of having a list of recommendations as the output, and with people speaking to the enquiry under parliamentary privilege without lawyers.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
I mean, Chinese numbers, who believes them, eh, but according to the BBC:
"In the week prior to 24 March, there were just over 14,000 new cases in the whole of mainland China. In the UK over a similar period, there were over 610,000 new infections."
I believe that there are also a few more of them than us, roughly 20x. Does put it into perspective somewhat.
Nobody believes the Chinese numbers. They are more unreliable than the Russian troop losses in Ukraine.
I'd have to check the numbers again, but when I last checked the Chinese numbers you would have to believe that they are doing about 20 times better than New Zealand (in terms of the case fatality rate) with inferior vaccines. Now obviously there are different demographics, and different ways of categorising things, but even so that really stretches credibility to the very limit.
You can see the deck hatch immediately below the flag, lifted up at an angle. In heavy seas, it’s firmly shut and watertight. The deck itself is designed to quickly disperse large volumes of water. Won’t be much fun for the crew though!
They'll be fine, it's not like they have to go out to handle sails or nets or anything
I don't think they're supposed to be out in heavy seas, are they? Might cause gin to be spilled.
I doubt its ocean going, but it's not a problem for a boat to get wet. The problem is when the boat fills with water. Looks like it has scuppers.
Interesting. I have used the word "scuppered" many times meaning ruined of failed. What is a "scupper"?
To be non-technical ...
A hole in the wall bit at the side of the deck which lets water out when the water gets over the boat and starts filling up the deck between the wall bits at the side. Water high up on a boat is bad because (a) it is weight high up and (b) it starts sloshing from side to side making it much worse and even more liable to capsize - the ferry car deck design flaw.
The hole should have a flap, hinged only one way, for obvious reasons. And not be gummed up by fresh paint, ditto.
I've seen houses with scuppers in the garden walls ...
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
The idea that lessons will actually be learned is laughable to say the least. It's a catchphrase for politicians and civil servants who have no intention of actually making any changes.
Anybody who utters the phrase "lessons must be learned" should be forced to watch Piers Morgan new show on Talk TV for the next 6 months....akin to the "break room" in Severance.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
The idea that lessons will actually be learned is laughable to say the least. It's a catchphrase for politicians and civil servants who have no intention of actually making any changes.
Yeah well I appreciate that but Covid seemed to draw the parties together as no other issue had previously so maybe there will be some inclination to see what went wrong and how the failures might be avoided in future.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
Mainly the latter.
And if you charter one, the contract usually stipulates you can only be at sea for 6 hours per day and only in daylight hours.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
I’ve suggested before to run it along the lines of an AAIB or RAIB enquiry, with the intention of having a list of recommendations as the output, and with people speaking to the enquiry under parliamentary privilege without lawyers.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
I mean, Chinese numbers, who believes them, eh, but according to the BBC:
"In the week prior to 24 March, there were just over 14,000 new cases in the whole of mainland China. In the UK over a similar period, there were over 610,000 new infections."
I believe that there are also a few more of them than us, roughly 20x. Does put it into perspective somewhat.
Nobody believes the Chinese numbers. They are more unreliable than the Russian troop losses in Ukraine.
I'd have to check the numbers again, but when I last checked the Chinese numbers you would have to believe that they are doing about 20 times better than New Zealand (in terms of the case fatality rate) with inferior vaccines. Now obviously there are different demographics, and different ways of categorising things, but even so that really stretches credibility to the very limit.
And you can look at Hong Kong and get a decent straw in the wind. Shenzhen is incredibly close to Hong Kong, and its now there.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
The idea that lessons will actually be learned is laughable to say the least. It's a catchphrase for politicians and civil servants who have no intention of actually making any changes.
Yeah well I appreciate that but Covid seemed to draw the parties together as no other issue had previously so maybe there will be some inclination to see what went wrong and how the failures might be avoided in future.
I seriously doubt it. The whole thing will descend into point scoring with Labour banging on about how much better X country in the EU was and the government not caring about people dying, the Tories will hit back with Labour not caring about the economy and the aftermath and nothing will actually get discovered and no changes will be made.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
Specific to gas, the single largest buyer (EU states) receive cheap piped gas, switching to LNG exports will require huge investment in LNG tech, I don't see where that money or expertise comes from. The risk premium for insuring Russian investments from expropriation must be astronomically high.
It doesn't require that much investment in tech (hence the fact that several European countries invested in LNG regas facilities, even though they were only lightly used). The issue is more that LNG gas is more expensive than Russian piped gas.
Simply, you're probably paying around $5/mmcf for piped Russian gas and $8 for new LNG from Mozambique. (Of course, it's more complex because a lot of the contracts are oil linked: but these are the general orders of magnitude.)
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
If you have real money now, you don't have one boat...oh no, that's for the plebs. You have a "support" boat and your gin palace. You helicopter in to the support boat (has a big helipad on it), tell the captain you want to go x place, they send the support boat ahead, set up for the day and then you take you gin palace to the location, such that when you arrive all the water toys etc are all set up for you.
Any travel that requires serious distance, the permanent crew sort all that out, and you just fly / helicopter to that location.
I don't think they're supposed to be out in heavy seas, are they? Might cause gin to be spilled.
I doubt its ocean going, but it's not a problem for a boat to get wet. The problem is when the boat fills with water. Looks like it has scuppers.
On careful study, that blue fender around the stern looks as though it could be lifted.
That sort of solution gives me the absolute willies, even if it is as robustly designed as it should be ... so many times, that's been the weak point in vessel sinkings. My dad (ex-RN) did not like travelling in ro-ro ferries, even before the Zeebrugge disaster.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
Mainly the latter.
And if you charter one, the contract usually stipulates you can only be at sea for 6 hours per day and only in daylight hours.
I imagined that was the case.
No wonder form presides over function if it is only ever meant to be parked in Monaco or Dubai whilst looking just a bit more outrageous than its neighbour.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
The idea that lessons will actually be learned is laughable to say the least. It's a catchphrase for politicians and civil servants who have no intention of actually making any changes.
Yeah well I appreciate that but Covid seemed to draw the parties together as no other issue had previously so maybe there will be some inclination to see what went wrong and how the failures might be avoided in future.
I seriously doubt it. The whole thing will descend into point scoring with Labour banging on about how much better X country in the EU was and the government not caring about people dying, the Tories will hit back with Labour not caring about the economy and the aftermath and nothing will actually get discovered and no changes will be made.
I admire your optimism, though.
There will also be all the various scientific advisors trying to cover their arses e.g. apparently they messed up the original modelling in terms of both how far the UK was behind Italy, but also the geographical spread. They were working on the premise there wasn't wide spread and would follow Wuhan and Northern Italy pattern of an epicentre.
Not only was it already here, it was geographically widely seeded, because of the large numbers of people from across the UK who go skiing there.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The tragedy for Venezuela is that they may finally get to benefit from thawing relations with the US and inward investment into their oil industry just at the moment oil goes into inexorable decline as a global energy commodity. A few years of growth then net zero.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
That's kind of where I was before. If MAD per se is impeccable it follows that the safest possible world - from nuclear holocaust - is one where every country has nuclear WMDs and can thus partake of some MAD. We instinctively know this is a nonsense therefore the first assertion is also a nonsense. MAD does not 'work' in that sense.
But your last para is key. Given where we are, and the impossibility of simultaneous mass mothballing, MAD is the best we've got. And it IS working right now in this conflagration. Plus it almost certainly will carry on doing so. This is what I concluded when I thought about it properly and it was a welcome conclusion to reach.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
I do agree with you about the 'gotcha' environment. But I don't think this is what Cummings is indulging in, even if others may try and use what he writes to that end. If we don't look critically and in detail at what went wrong (and right) then we will learn nothing. There seems to be little appetite from the Government to look seriously at what they did wrong and little appetite from their opponents to look at what went right. Cummings for all his undeniable hatred of some individuals in particular - Hancock being a prime example - has regularly made comment on what went right and has been fulsome in his praise of individuals, often quite low in the food chain, within the Civil Service who moved mountains to get things done and undoubtedly saved many lives. But there seems to be no willingness on the part of those responsible both in Government and Opposition as well as their advisors and the wider Civil Service to acknowledge that they made some really bad decisions.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
Mainly the latter.
And if you charter one, the contract usually stipulates you can only be at sea for 6 hours per day and only in daylight hours.
I imagined that was the case.
No wonder form presides over function if it is only ever meant to be parked in Monaco or Dubai whilst looking just a bit more outrageous than its neighbour.
Huh? It has an absolutely vital function of providing a fantastic floating hotel, bar, water sports venue, water park and nightclub.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Of course it changes the dynamics. MAD works if both sides fear a failure of the balance. If one side does not fear that failure or thinks it is a price worth paying then the dynamic ceases to exist. This is why the nuclear deterrent doesn't work with religious fanatic terrorists. If they don't fear the apocalypse, or if they welcome it as they think they will survive and a new order will follow then there is no threat to them from MAD.
That only holds true for lunatics from whom apocalypse is acceptable. You are not seriously suggesting that that is what we are dealing with with Putin? Putin may be somewhat detached from reality recently, but he clearly wants a Russian Empire to survive whatever he does. And the same will hold for all imaginable leaders of nuclear states/empires.
And what answer is there to a mad monk with a nuke? Disarmament?
So I would argue that there are at least two separate problems - the one with sane actors or actors who fear the apocalypse (for which we must have a strategy and MAD remains the best option), and one were we are dealing with the as yet mythical beast of a messiah seeking the end of humanity.
There may be no answer to that latter problem, but that in no way obviates the need for an answer to the former.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The tragedy for Venezuela is that they may finally get to benefit from thawing relations with the US and inward investment into their oil industry just at the moment oil goes into inexorable decline as a global energy commodity. A few years of growth then net zero.
Net Zero does not mean the end of hydrocarbons by any means. Just under half of every barrel of oil is used for non energy needs. That is not going away any time soon - or ever.
1- Guarantors will intervene if Russia attacks after three days of consultations. They may provide arms, or impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine
2- In return, Ukraine becomes non-aligned, non-nuclear state, with no foreign bases but can join EU
3 - Ukraine, Russia to discuss the status of Crimea for the next 15 years. Ukraine won’t use violence to resolve the issue
4- Putin, Zelensky will personally discuss Donbas dispute.
Russia says security guarantees won’t cover Crimea and Donbas
How is it going to be ratified?
5- Ukraine will hold a referendum on the deal. If people approve it, then the guarantors will pass it through their individual parliaments
I’m a big fan on no more people getting hurt, but this is such an obvious non starter and load of rubbish. 😕
It doesn’t resolve Donbass.
What is definition of neutrality, no armed forces, defensive or offensive weaponry, air force, navy? Whatever is meant by neutrality, So easily worked round by west training and arming conventional force up to the hilt, training bases and stockpiles in NATO just yards from the border.
Which Guarantors provide a no fly zone over Ukraine versus Russia? Poland and Canada? How realistic is this?
IMO Guarantors would be daft to sign up to this, Though appreciate Poland heartfelt signing, everyone else including the UK couldn’t be sure what they are getting into or how to fulfil it when push comes to shove, so not daft enough to sign up as guarantor.
This approach isn’t going to end this military operation any time soon because its airy fairy can’t even see how it’s basis for something that can work. Back to drawing board whilst everyday people eating and drinking sewage. Disgusted at Putin regime and their mad ideas about azov nationalists and Ukraine history ☹
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Comments
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fallacies-Cold-War-Deterrence-Direction-ebook/dp/B08W2HYV7K/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60913569
Breaking: Russia is beginning to withdraw some forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, in what the US assesses is a “major” strategy shift, two senior US officials tell me. US is already observing movements underway of Russian Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs)
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1508787161021227012
Without speaking to the second part, whether the first part is chicken->egg or egg->chicken is up for debate.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Plato himself pointed this out in the Parmenides but didn't come up with a solution
Even in your scenario, the reputation of Russia's armed forces have taken an absolute battering (and the likely export buyers of their kit will have dried up). Ukraine will be closer than ever to the West. Russia's economy has been hammered, and Germany and the rest of Europe will never be as reliant on their energy as previously. Germany is rearming. And NATO (which might have been abandoned under a Trump presidency) has been resurrected.
And, of course, the people of Russia will know something has gone terribly wrong.
The changes to the laws to crush internal dissent. The locking up of people for peaceful protests. The closure of basically all the independent newspapers. The rising cost of staples in shops, and the disappearance of high tech goods.
Yes, sure, they *may* get what you suggest. And it may well be that sanctions are grudgingly lifted.
But the idea that Russia's outlook is somehow brighter and they are somehow stronger or wealthier than five weeks ago is for the birds.
Yes, sure, Ukraine may have lose more materially. But their nation is now united. There is no 'pro-Russian' element in the country any more. They have their origin story, of when they fought off the big Russian bear and inflicted terrible costs on them.
And I suspect that the West will help Ukraine rebuild. There will be cheap loans from the IMF/World Bank, as well as more direct foreign aid. There will be money from charities and from people like you and me.
Ukraine's future, despite all the devastation, is brighter now than five weeks ago.
Unfortunately, that's a very bitter pill for the government to swallow. Under previous administrations, I reckon they'd have done it. Under Xi, it seems very unlikely.
Sinopharm is actually not bad compared to Pfizer, after a third shot, but the proportion of the population that have had that is quite small.
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
The reason I am hesitant is that there is nothing new in analyzing politico-military-economic issues through the prism of what the other side knows and thinks. That is, after all, the very basis of both game theory and behavioural economics. So does this book really add a new perspective on MAD?
I ask, because with my involvement with assessing societal risks of synthetic biology, I have come across far too many people who, new to the field, keep on reinventing the wheel thinking that they have insights that we, who have been doing it for decades, do not. Time is too precious.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
Do we have any PB superyachties who can explain how that back end deals with heavy seas?
Does it have dismountable flood defences like Tewkesbury?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60912754
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
Oh, and four: as anyone who has played civ will know, Russia, which is a despotism and is large in scale, sees much of the potential value which might be extracted from its fossil fuels disappear in corruption. Making it harder still to break even. (I am assuming real life operates like civ here.)
"In the week prior to 24 March, there were just over 14,000 new cases in the whole of mainland China. In the UK over a similar period, there were over 610,000 new infections."
I believe that there are also a few more of them than us, roughly 20x. Does put it into perspective somewhat.
And they were marketing themselves as the Ruth Davidson Says No to Indyref Party with 'Conservative' in gey wee (Anglice, verrrry tiny) lettering somewhere in the leaflet to conform to legalities.
Suddenly, it changed ... the local council candidate here could be a LD but for the blue colour of the leaflet rabbiting on about roundabouts and dug shite.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
-The territory they hold is strategically significant, so outsize its actual size.
-The west was decarbonising anyway, this may slightly speed that up, but I don't think the defiance will be that significant, Germany still does not what to switch on Nuclear plants, tidal lagoons take years to build, and they can and will still sell to other people like china.
-The wests promise to rebuild Ukraine may tern out to be as half-hatred as its plan to arm Ukraine, meanwhile Russia has already invested a lot in to Crimean,
-Ukraine has 10 million displaced people may still in Ukraine and homeless, if the end of war feels like a defeat, then this might not become the great rebirth of a nation that we had been tolled to expect, but instead lots of ranker and resentment at how people are treated after the war.
-Western company's may not be quite as keen to re-enter Russia, but money is a big incentive and as French company have demonstrated, there will be people willing to take the risk if the reward is big enough. moor may be chines, but they will come.
-The Russian army has messed up a lot and lost a lot, but the thing is they can and will learn, like the Ukrainians army did after 2014, they have lost a lot of tanks, so what tanks as we see armed as impotent as we thought, they have captured NLAWs and other weapons, which they can study, they may also have learned the impotence of an NCO core, and the limitations of conscripts, the new Russian army may have less tanks and conscripts and more NCOs and coppyed NLAWs and as such will not be as week again, even if this takes 2-3 years to achieve.
_Finland and Sweeded have been talking about joining NATO for 30 years, and have a close relationship now, they may join, personally I doubt it, but so what if they do, its not that deferent form how things are now. Putin will use it in his own propaganda.
Not 100% sure they will. Certainly anecdotally people in Russia seem to be very much supporting Putin and the "SO".
Plus do the people of Britain know something went terribly wrong in Basra, for example.
The West will happily lend (on very easy terms) as much as Ukraine needs to rebuild its armed forces.
(1) if it's going fast enough, the counter isn't going to suffer pooping from waves overtaking and breaking over it. But that projecting stern is only a small part relatively -
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/the-superyacht-directory/phi--95477
(2) I wondered if it is ballasted by pumping sea water into tanks. to lower the hull in harbour to bring the counter down to convenient stepping onto dinghy level?
ETA but it is hard to see how you get from them to "scupper" as a verb.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
This is a gunwale with scuppers in it. The scuppers are the holes.
Here's another one on a bigger boat - "scupper hole"
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scupper-hole-water-drainage-main-deck-2085211840
A hole in the wall bit at the side of the deck which lets water out when the water gets over the boat and starts filling up the deck between the wall bits at the side. Water high up on a boat is bad because (a) it is weight high up and (b) it starts sloshing from side to side making it much worse and even more liable to capsize - the ferry car deck design flaw.
The hole should have a flap, hinged only one way, for obvious reasons. And not be gummed up by fresh paint, ditto.
I've seen houses with scuppers in the garden walls ...
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8286229,-0.8570597,3a,90y,309.07h,73.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snw0SGOdk4dBtif68JN31rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And if you charter one, the contract usually stipulates you can only be at sea for 6 hours per day and only in daylight hours.
I admire your optimism, though.
Simply, you're probably paying around $5/mmcf for piped Russian gas and $8 for new LNG from Mozambique. (Of course, it's more complex because a lot of the contracts are oil linked: but these are the general orders of magnitude.)
The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
Any travel that requires serious distance, the permanent crew sort all that out, and you just fly / helicopter to that location.
But it's only football, so no one cares.
No wonder form presides over function if it is only ever meant to be parked in Monaco or Dubai whilst looking just a bit more outrageous than its neighbour.
Not only was it already here, it was geographically widely seeded, because of the large numbers of people from across the UK who go skiing there.
But your last para is key. Given where we are, and the impossibility of simultaneous mass mothballing, MAD is the best we've got. And it IS working right now in this conflagration. Plus it almost certainly will carry on doing so. This is what I concluded when I thought about it properly and it was a welcome conclusion to reach.
If you want to sail the atlantic call on Greta.
And what answer is there to a mad monk with a nuke? Disarmament?
So I would argue that there are at least two separate problems - the one with sane actors or actors who fear the apocalypse (for which we must have a strategy and MAD remains the best option), and one were we are dealing with the as yet mythical beast of a messiah seeking the end of humanity.
There may be no answer to that latter problem, but that in no way obviates the need for an answer to the former.
It doesn’t resolve Donbass.
What is definition of neutrality, no armed forces, defensive or offensive weaponry, air force, navy? Whatever is meant by neutrality, So easily worked round by west training and arming conventional force up to the hilt, training bases and stockpiles in NATO just yards from the border.
Which Guarantors provide a no fly zone over Ukraine versus Russia? Poland and Canada? How realistic is this?
IMO Guarantors would be daft to sign up to this, Though appreciate Poland heartfelt signing, everyone else including the UK couldn’t be sure what they are getting into or how to fulfil it when push comes to shove, so not daft enough to sign up as guarantor.
This approach isn’t going to end this military operation any time soon because its airy fairy can’t even see how it’s basis for something that can work. Back to drawing board whilst everyday people eating and drinking sewage. Disgusted at Putin regime and their mad ideas about azov nationalists and Ukraine history ☹
https://www.yacht-transport.com/yacht-carriers/yacht-express/
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.